260731.mbx

260731.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 31, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 152 Headlines A1 DEVELOPMENT LLC: Mundy Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Curtis Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Kachrodia, Derivative Suits AHS HOSPITAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Ekholm Suit Says AL'S SPORTING: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ALO LLC: Mentouri Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California AMAZON.COM INC: Hachette Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal AMAZON.COM INC: HarperCollins Seeks to File Docs Under Seal AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Maintain Under Seal Redacted Exhibits AMAZON.COM INC: Simon & Schuster Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ANTHROPIC PBC: Faces Pascual Suit Over Subscribers' Claude Access ARB GAMING LLC: Taylor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ARCADIA CONSUMER HEALTHCARE: Fox Files Suit in S.D. New York ASCENSION HEALTH: Whitmore Suit Moved to E.D. Mo. AUDIBLE INC: Parties Must File Joint Case Status Report by Oct. 30 AUTO WAREHOUSING: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert. Deadlines AVERTEST LLC: Newell Files Suit in E.D. Virginia AVONDALE AUTOS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wukitsch Claims BANK OF NEW YORK: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Barker BARI HOME: Pre-class Cert. Discovery in Laduca Extended to Sept. 1 BEEKEEPER'S NATURALS: Esparza Alleges Illegal Subscription Renewal BENWORTH CAPITAL: Arreola Sues Over Leaked Private Information BERKELEY, CA: Encampment Removal Lawsuit Elevated to Class Action BIOLIFE SOLUTIONS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Repligen Corp BLACKROCK TCP CAPITAL: Curran Suit Transferred to D. Delaware BNBUILDERS INC: Class Cert. Bid in Schlueter Due Jan. 25, 2027 BOONE MOUNTAIN: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid in Hettinger OK'd in Part BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Wins Class Certification Bid BURNSVILLE APARTMENTS: Tenant Sue Over Unsafe Living Conditions CABIN CREEK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach CANADIAN TIRE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Massive Data Breach CARRIER GLOBAL: Continues to Defend HVAC Antitrust Class Suits CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Lunstrum Class, Derivative Suits CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Mandamus Review of Beryl MDL Ruling CF FOR LA: Underpays Workers, Fuentes Says CLAY LABS: Violates Right of Publicity, Burzawa Says CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS: Christian Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee CME GROUP: Appeal Filed After Defense Verdict in Shareholder Suit COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Breach Class Suit COOL RUNNING HEATING: Bishop Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DELICIAS RESTAURANT: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York DELTA AIR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Valdovinos Due June 1, 2027 DELTA GALIL: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California DIAMOND PARKING: Mayo Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. DIGNITY HEALTH: Seeks Denial of Walker Class Cert. Bid DIGNITY HEALTH: Walker Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tarin Alleges DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Williams Alleges DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Thomas Suit Removed to C.D. California DOLLAR TREE STORES: Patterson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DOT FOODS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unfair Pay Practices DOW INC: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Class Action Dismissal Bid DRAFTKINGS INC: Calif. Illegal Gambling Suit Likely to Proceed DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Broad Suit Removed to C.D. California DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Dicesare Suit Removed to C.D. California EASTERN GROUP: Hawk Seeks More Time To File Class Cert Bid EDWARD E. MCNALLY: Dale Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania EQUIPMENTSHARE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ERNST & YOUNG: Agrees to Settle MOVEit Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM EXACT SCIENCES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Skiff Alleges EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters' Bid to Certify Investor Class OK'd FIRSTENERGY CORP: Securities Class Suit Recertified, Appeal Sought FIVE POINT: Agrees to $10.8M Settlement Over Bayview Testing Claims FOOTHILL CAPITAL: Benites Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California FOREVER WINNING LLC: Worth Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky GAS SOUTH LLC: Irvin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia GDA CONSULTING: Appeals Arbitration Denial Order to 4th Circuit GOLDEN HEARTS: Worth Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky GOOGLE LLC: Cameras Scan People's Faces Without Consent, Suit Says GOOGLE LLC: Hearing on Judgment on Pleadings Continued to Sept. 10 GOOGLE LLC: Pearson Files Suit Over Illegal Data-Sharing Scheme GOOGLE LLC: Smith Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses GRAND CANYON: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses GUITAR CENTER: Agrees to Settle Wage and Hour Suit for $2.4MM H2O AMERICA: CWC Continues to Defend Water Contamination Class Suit HCA INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Fox Suit Due Jan. 11, 2027 HDR GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Bitcoin Theft, Insider Trading HEALTH CARE FACILITY: Settlement in Villarin Gets Final Nod HOPE BAKING COMPANY: Estrada Files WARN Act Suit in W.D. Arkansas HR-REVOLUTION LLC: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Background Report HUDSON VALLEY MEDICAL: Traver Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. HUNGRYPANDA US: Faces Dai's Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ICONOCLAST CONTENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rumenapp Alleges IHG MANAGEMENT: Garcia Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages IMA DILIGENCE SERVICES: Clawson Suit Removed to D. Kansas INTEGER HOLDINGS: Pembroke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: Wickersham Balks at Unprotected Personal Info JERSEY CENTRAL: Securities Class Suit Recertified; Appeal Filed JEWISH VOICE: Court Dismisses Faoro Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Cervantes Suit KDB DELIVERY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Steiner Due May 28, 2027 LANCASTER AFH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Salim Alleges LANDSCAPES BY JEFFCO: Araujo Seeks to Recover Regular and OT Pay LEPRINO FOODS: Court OK's $283K Gross Settlement Amount LIFE INSURANCE: Krimbow's Bid for Class Cert. Granted in Part LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Ney Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Pimentel Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Whelan Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. LOUISIANA: Frankovich Personal Injury Suit Removed to D. La. LOWE'S HOME: Court Stays Case Deadlines Pending Mediation LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification MAERSK INC: Plaintiffs May File Leave to Amend Complaint by Sept. 4 MARCUS CORPORATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Morris Suit MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Appeals Class Certification Order MAXIMUS EDUCATION: $3MM Settlement Final Court Hearing Set Oct. 7 MCEWEN AND ASSOCIATES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MCLANE COMPANY INC: Stott Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MDL 3181: Faces Rapp Suit Over Defective Spinal Cord Stimulators META PLATFORMS: Martinez Suit Removed to D. New Mexico MICHAELS COMPANIES: Crow Suit Removed to E.D. Washington MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Ploss Class Suit MONEY FACTORY: Taylor Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Games MOSAIC CO: Faces Benedict Antitrust Class Suit in D. Kan. MOSHY GAMING LLC: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky MRC CONSULTING: Appeals Arbitration Order in RICO Suit to 4th Cir. MRC CONSULTING: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Bradby RICO Suit MW SERVICES LTD: Mundy Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky NANO-X IMAGING: Investors With Losses Urged to Contact Bragar Eagel NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: American Cross Appeals Summary Judgment Order NCAA: Wisne Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Status NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Securities Suit Dismissal Appealed NETCREDIT LOAN: Sharp Suit Removed to S.D. Florida NIAGEN BIOSCIENCE: Hart Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements NICK LAMB: Hewitt Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Sales Prices OHIO: Pivonka Appeals Judgment Entered in Pinvonka Case ORACLE CORP: Andrade Balks at Compromised Students' Info PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Freitas Suit Removed to E.D. California PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Court Adopts Discovery Deadlines PBM LLC: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. Sup. PEPSICO INC: Walsh Sues Over Mislabeled Gatorade Products PERFECTION BAKERIES: Patty Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA POLARIS INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Perkins-Gardner Appeals to Minn. Ct. of Appeals QUEST HOSPITALITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response RALPHS GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holland Alleges RAMACO RESOURCES: Faces 2 Class Actions Over Brook Mine Disclosures REBUILT BROKERAGE: Pettway Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages RUTHERFORD COUNTY ADULT: Merckson Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee S&P GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Australian Inv. Loss Class Suit SAFETYFIRST SYSTEMS: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach Claims SAINT PETE MRI: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach SCHYLLING INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Dangerous Sensory Toys SEAGRASS LANDSCAPE: Perez Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SECURITAS SECURITY: Parties Seek to Present Evidentiary Objections SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Roeun Suit Removed to N.D. California SKIMO CO: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Denied SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Christiansen Appeals Order to 2nd Circuit STATION FILM: Martinez Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Crew Members SUN COMMUNITIES: Continues to Defend Manufactured Home Class Suit SUNFLOWER LTD: Payne Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky SUNO INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pilavian Suit Alleges SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Armijo Suit Removed to E.D. California SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Appeals Wolters Suit Order to 8th Circuit SYSTEM PAVERS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $350,544 TARGET CORPORATION: Cavallaro Files Suit in S.D. New York TEXAS: BDHXTDRC Seeks Class Certifcation TILRAY BRANDS: Continues to Defend LATAM Securities Class Suit TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Belley Sues Over Leaked Private Information TWO MAIDS FRANCHISING: Mollins Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. UNIFIED DENTAL SOLUTIONS: Lawhorn Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Angye Suit UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ratcliff Says UPLEAD LLC: Gargus Seeks Modification of Scheduling Order US BANK NATIONAL: Saiki Suit Removed to W.D. Washington VGW HOLDINGS: Engel Balks at Illegal Online Gambling Operation VITAC CORP: Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Final Nod WINCO HOLDINGS: Jezierski Suit Removed to W.D. Washington WOOPLA INC: Taylor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Faces Ellis Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages WW FUNCRAFTERS JWA: Iracane Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 12, 2027 XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Defends Securities Class and Derivative Suits XSOLIS INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Shorey Claims XSOLIS INC: Mcleod Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Dec. 23 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.2BB Reserves as of June 30 ********* A1 DEVELOPMENT LLC: Mundy Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A1 Development, LLC. The case is styled as Braden Lamar Mundy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A1 Development, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00494-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. A1 Development Solutions -- https://aone.llc/ -- is a trusted, full-service firm with deep agricultural roots, proudly serving communities and clients throughout the Upper Midwest.[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 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Curtis Balks at Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- KANDI CURTIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC. and EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-08572 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiff and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On July 15, 2026, the Defendants experienced a data breach. Since that incident occurred, the notorious ransomware group "Shinyhunters" claimed responsibility for the data breach. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose private information was compromised as a result of Defendants failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendants inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected private information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendants' conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, the complaint adds. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is a multinational healthcare and medical device company headquartered in Abbott Park, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Kachrodia, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Acadia Healthcare Company, 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Kachrodia class suit and the derivative suits On July 10, 2025, a consolidated class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the consolidated lawsuit styled Kachrodia v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01238, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between Feb. 8, 2020 and Feb. 27, 2025. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Sept. 8, 2025. On July 24, 2026, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. At this time, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount or range of the ultimate liability, if any, in connection with this action. In addition to the consolidated securities class action, several related shareholder derivative actions have been filed. On Feb. 21, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Davydov v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00167, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a second related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Beard v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-0441, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider selling. On June 11, 2019, the Davydov and Beard actions were consolidated, and on Feb. 22, 2021, the court entered an order staying the consolidated case. On Oct. 23, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a third related derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Pfenning v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2020-0915-NAC, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty. On Feb. 17, 2021, the court entered an order staying the Pfenning case. On Feb. 24, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a fourth derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Solak v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2021-0163-NAC, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint in Solak alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and insider selling. The parties to these derivative cases have reached a settlement in principle for all of the cases. The settlement is subject to finalization in a stipulation of settlement, which in turn is subject to both preliminary and final court approval proceedings. Based on the terms of the settlement in principle, the Company does not expect to incur a material loss in connection with these matters. More recently, on Feb. 14, 2025, a purported stockholder filed an additional related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Kachrodia v. Osteen, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00172, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Based on the nature of this action, the Company does not expect to incur a material loss. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is a provider of behavioral healthcare services, operating a network of inpatient psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers, and other specialty treatment facilities. It offers care for patients with mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and other behavioral health issues across the United States and select international markets. AHS HOSPITAL: Underpays Registered Nurses, Ekholm Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- COLLIN EKHOLM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHS HOSPITAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-09008 (D.N.J., July 20, 2026) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for pre-shift work that resulted in unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the FLSA, NJWHL, and NJWPL. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its facility in Morristown Medical Center as a non-exempt registered nurse. AHS Hospital Corp. operates a healthcare system in New Jersey and New York. Its enterprise includes such New Jersey hospitals as Morristown Medical Center, where Named Plaintiff worked, as well as Overlook Medical Center, Goryeb Children's Hospital, Hackettstown Medical Center, Chilton Medical Center, Newton Medical Center, and CentraState Medical Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Scott Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com AL'S SPORTING: Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AL'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-6292 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.als.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Fagnani, a visually-impaired and legally blind person, was denied access of the Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. Al's Sporting Goods operates the ALS online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ALO LLC: Mentouri Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alo, LLC. The case is styled as Issac Mentouri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alo, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-08022 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alo Yoga -- https://www.aloyoga.com/ -- is an American premium athletic apparel retailer headquartered in Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AMAZON.COM INC: Hachette Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the non-party Hachette Book Group, Inc. asks the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal the narrowly tailored redactions identified in the attached Appendix. Amazon filed its proposed redactions to the Class Certification Papers on July 9, 2026. The material Hachette seeks to protect falls into three categories. Each is non-public. Each remains competitively sensitive today. -- Contract terms with Amazon. The redactions cover commission rates and price tiers, discount pool funding and mechanics, marketing and promotional commitments, and parity and notification provisions. -- Contract terms with other retailers. Several exhibits set out the commission and marketing terms of Hachette's agreements with Apple, Google, and Barnes & Noble. Public disclosure would tell each of those retailers what Hachette agreed to give the others, and would tell competing publishers what Hachette has been willing to accept. -- Internal pricing and strategy documents. The remaining redactions cover Hachette's pricing grids, promotional plans, internal market-share reporting, strategic plans, and assessments of its negotiating position with Amazon. Sealing these specific figures and analyses safeguards them "from competitors who may wish to exploit" them. Hachette seeks to redact only the specific contract terms, figures, and pricing and distribution mechanisms whose disclosure would cause harm, the suit says. If the Court finds that any proposed redaction is not fully supported, Hachette requests leave to submit supplemental information or a revised motion to seal to address the Court's concerns. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the non-Party's motion dated July 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ClIWwz at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Non-Party Hachette Book Group, Inc. Richard Snyder, Esq. ZAIGER LINDEN ROBERTI & PEPE LLC 1629 K St N.W., Suite 300 Washington DC 20006 AMAZON.COM INC: HarperCollins Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the non-party HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. asks the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal narrowly-tailored redactions of the Parties' class certification and related papers concerning confidential HarperCollins materials. HarperCollins' proposed redactions are based on excerpted texts provided by the Parties. HarperCollins' proposed redactions consist of non-public contract terms, including specific pricing, distribution models, and other material terms that HarperCollins negotiated at arm’s length with Defendant Amazon, and which HarperCollins maintains in confidence. Public disclosure of these arm's-length terms would materially harm HarperCollins in future negotiations with other e-book retailers by allowing them "to use the information in pitching their own services" or in setting the terms they demand of, or offer to, HarperCollins, the suit claims. Nonparty HarperCollins makes this motion only to protect "business information that might harm [its] competitive standing," the suit adds. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the non-Party's motion dated July 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SxCtfs at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Non-Party HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C: C. Scott Lent, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-8220 Facsimile: (212) 836-8689 E-mail: scott.lent@arnoldporter.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Maintain Under Seal Redacted Exhibits -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to maintain under seal the redacted portions of the exhibits attached to the class certification papers and to maintain entirely under seal documents that are wholly confidential. Amazon requests that the Court maintain under seal: the Defendant's Exs. 1-B and 1-C, which contain summary tables and statistics of Amazon's transaction data. Amazon also requests that the Court maintain under seal the redacted portions of: Plaintiffs' Exs. 1, 2, 36, 37 and the Defendant's Exs. 1, 1-A, and 1-D, which are expert reports and appendices that describe, summarize, and analyze relevant Amazon's internal sensitive and propriety information; and Plaintiffs' Exs. 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 28 and the Defendant's Exs. 8, 11-12, which are correspondence, financial reports, and deposition excerpts that describe, summarize, and analyze relevant Amazon's internal sensitive and propriety information. To the extent the Court determines to deny certain of the proposed redactions, Amazon requests the opportunity to submit a revised motion to seal to address any concerns the Court may have. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology and e-commerce company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cEZpVP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5901 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com AMAZON.COM INC: Simon & Schuster Seeks to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the non-party Simon & Schuster, LLC asks the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal narrowly tailored redactions of the Parties' class certification papers concerning highly confidential and commercially sensitive information of Simon & Schuster. Specifically, Simon & Schuster seeks approval to maintain under seal (1) competitively sensitive and highly confidential contractual terms and (b) internal competitively sensitive and proprietary business information that is cited in the Parties' Class Certification Papers. Disclosure of the terms, including Simon & Schuster's analysis and communications about those terms and their impact on its business, would harm Simon & Schuster's competitive position, ongoing commercial relationships, and ability to negotiate future agreements, the suit says. Simon & Schuster also seeks to seal in full the underlying contractual agreements with Defendant Amazon that have been submitted as exhibits to the Class Certification Papers. These exhibits consist of both current and prior agreements with Amazon. Although the initial term for some of the contracts has passed, the contracts have been extended by superseding amendments that generally leave in place many of the original terms. As a result, many of the contractual terms remain applicable and continue to govern the parties' relationship, the suit asserts. To the extent the Court determines to deny any of the proposed redactions, Simon & Schuster requests the opportunity to submit a revised motion to seal or further explanation to address any concerns. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the non-Party's motion dated July 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QRXnpl at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Non-Party Simon & Schuster, LLC: Yehudah L. Buchweitz, Esq. WELL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 E-mail: Yehudah.Buchweitz@weil.com ANTHROPIC PBC: Faces Pascual Suit Over Subscribers' Claude Access ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISABELO PASCUAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANTHROPIC, PBC, Case No. 3:26-cv-07699 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) arises from Anthropic's retention of subscription fees while its own backend changes and production defects materially reduced subscribers' practical access to its flagship product: Claude. According to the complaint, Anthropic's own admitted failures caused users' paid usage limits to deplete more quickly, and diminished the value of the services subscribers purchased. Individual subscribers pay approximately $20 per month for Claude Pro, $100 per month for Max 5x, or $200 per month for Max 20x. Those plans are subscription packages that provide access to multiple Claude products within each tier. The most familiar product is regular Claude: the web, desktop, and mobile chat experience through which subscribers type prompts, upload documents, request research or analysis, draft or edit text, and ask Claude to perform other general tasks. This experience is analogous to an ordinary paid generative-AI chat subscription. Paid Pro and Max plans also include access to Claude Code, a distinct, specialized "agentic" coding tool. Claude Code can read a software codebase, edit project files, run commands, debug problems, and integrate with development tools. A person can purchase Pro or Max and use only regular Claude, only Claude Code, or both. The challenged conduct affected two overlapping groups of paid subscribers. First, Anthropic announced a March 2026 peak-hour change under which Pro and Max subscribers would move through five-hour session limits faster than before. That theory concerns paid subscribers who used regular Claude, Claude Code, or both. Second, Anthropic later admitted that separate March April 2026 backend changes specifically degraded the Claude Code tool and related products, causing lower intelligence, lost context, repeated work, cache misses, and faster-than-expected usage depletion, says the suit. Anthropic develops and operates Claude, an artificial-intelligence platform offered through free and paid subscription tiers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: mruan@jjlmlaw.com jjagher@jjlmlaw.com nlange@jjlmlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com ARB GAMING LLC: Taylor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARB Gaming, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Javius Ja'Rome Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARB Gaming, LLC, ARB Interactive, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00488-CHB (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ARB Interactive -- https://www.arbinteractive.com/ -- builds innovative social+ gaming and sweepstakes experiences that entertain millions across the U.S..[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 ARCADIA CONSUMER HEALTHCARE: Fox Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc. The case is styled as Linette Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06232-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare -- https://arcadiach.com/ -- is a manufacturer and distributor of vitamins and nutritional supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Whitmore Suit Moved to E.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KRYSTLE WHITMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH MINISTRY SERVICE CENTER, LLC; and ASCENSIONCONNECT, LLC, Defendants, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 1:26-cv-01086, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:26-cv-01138-CMS, on July 20, 2026. The case is assigned to Judge Cristian M. Stevens. Ascension Health Ministry Service Center, LLC operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides physician practice management, venture capital investing, biomedical engineering, clinical care, risk management, palliative care, spiritual, and information services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Esq. JESELSKIS BRINKERHOFF AND JOSEPH, LLC 320 North Meridian Street, Suite 428 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 220-6290 Facsimile: (317) 220-6291 Email: kjeselskis@jbjlegal.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 936-2143 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com AUDIBLE INC: Parties Must File Joint Case Status Report by Oct. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hollis v. Audible Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01999 (W.D. Wash., Filed Dec. 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order temporarily suspending consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as well as Defendant's Motion to Seal Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pending mediation. Accordingly, the Parties shall file a joint case status report by October 30, 2026, including their position(s) on whether the Court should consider the motion to seal in the event the case is resolved. The Clerk is directed to remove the two motions from the Court's calendar, to be re-noted if appropriate at a later time. The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract. Audible provides digital spoken audio information and entertainment services.[CC] AUTO WAREHOUSING: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert. Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO B. BROWN, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. AUTO WAREHOUSING CO.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-07300-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to continue class certification deadlines in light of scheduled mediation as follows: Event Date The Plaintiff's motion and expert reports: Nov. 17, 2026 The Defendant's opposition and expert Jan. 8, 2027 reports: The Plaintiff's reply: Feb. 4, 2027 Class-certification hearing: Feb. 16, 2027 The requested hearing time and location remain 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco, or at such later date and time as may be convenient for the Court. The Parties have agreed to participate in private mediation before Jeffrey Fuchsman, Esq., on Sept. 30, 2026; A limited continuance will allow the Parties to devote their resources to preparing for and participating meaningfully in mediation, allow reasonable time for postmediation follow-up, and conserve party and judicial resources; The requested modification will affect only the class-certification deadlines and hearing; no trial date has been set, and all other dates and deadlines will remain unchanged. Auto Warehousing is a provider of automotive logistics and warehousing solutions in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WOJryn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey Klein, Esq. Jovahn Wiggins, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com jwiggins@lelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Ronak Patel, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 E-mail: giskander@littler.com ropatel@littler.com AVERTEST LLC: Newell Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avertest, LLC. The case is styled as Tatyanna Newell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avertest, LLC d/b/a Averhealth, Case No. 3:26-cv-00706 (E.D. Va., July 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Avertest LLC doing business as Averhealth -- https://averhealth.com/ -- provides substance use disorder monitoring and treatment solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Adair Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Ste. 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 529-0001 Fax: (804) 529-0009 Email: lee@floydpc.com AVONDALE AUTOS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wukitsch Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- DAWNA WUKITSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVONDALE AUTOS LLC d/b/a BELL ROAD MITSUBISHI, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05079-SPL (D. Ariz., July 20, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Avondale Autos LLC d/b/a Bell Road Mitsubishi is an automotive marketplace that provides new automobiles, used automobiles, service parts, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Barker ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY BARKER, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-07189-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: 1. All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. The Defendant is a major American global financial services company specializing in asset servicing, asset management, and wealth management. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cNCqon at no extra charge.[CC] BARI HOME: Pre-class Cert. Discovery in Laduca Extended to Sept. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LADUCA, et al., v. BARI HOME CARE, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07970 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 15, 2024), the Hon Judge Joseph A. Marutollo entered an order: -- granting the parties' fifth extension request, and -- extending the deadline to complete pre-class certification discovery to September 14, 2026, and the deadline to move for class certification to September 21, 2026. Accordingly, there will be no further extensions under any circumstances whatsoever. failure to abide by this order may result in sanctions. The parties shall file a joint status report certifying the completion of pre-class certification discovery by September 14, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Bari Home is a New York-based home health care service provider.[CC] BEEKEEPER'S NATURALS: Esparza Alleges Illegal Subscription Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL ESPARZA, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEEKEEPER'S NATURALS INC., an Ontario corporation, d/b/a WWW.BEEKEEPERSNATURALS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26CU033631C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 18, 2026) arises from the Defendant's unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law. The Plaintiff brings this action after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.beekeepersnaturals.com which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from the Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. Beekeeper's Naturals Inc. is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: dferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com BENWORTH CAPITAL: Arreola Sues Over Leaked Private Information -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA ARREOLA, MIGUEL TORREALBA, SCOTT ECKARD, LANIER DAVIS, and ANTUAN HILL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-012064 (Fla. Cir., 11th Jud., July 24, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from the failure of the Defendant to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information of its customers, including Plaintiffs and Class Members. On or about May 18, 2025, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained access to Defendant's system and network and exfiltrated the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class Members. On or about September 16, 2025, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs and Class Members about the incident. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect PII. Plaintiff Arreola is a citizen of California and a victim of the data security breach. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC is a private hard money lender founded in 2008 and based in Coral Gables, Florida, providing residential, commercial, and construction mortgage alternatives to traditional bank financing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort 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 BERKELEY, CA: Encampment Removal Lawsuit Elevated to Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Kushner of Smart Cities Dive reports that a civil rights lawsuit filed against Berkeley, California, over the city's encampment removal procedures was certified as a class action last week by a district court judge in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs argue the city's encampment removals violated constitutional protections against property seizure and destruction, and that the city's 72-hour parking restrictions discriminate under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city updated its encampment policy in 2024 to authorize removals when an offer of shelter "is not practicable" under "relatively narrow" circumstances, including when encampments pose imminent health hazards, fire risks or constitute a public nuisance. Dive Insight: A 2024 Supreme Court ruling granted local governments the authority to place bans on homeless encampments, and enforcement policies around the country are being shaped. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has urged localities to adopt encampment bans on public land while stressing compassion and dignity. A memo following the adoption of Berkeley's 2024 encampment policy update affirms the city's primary "housing-first" approach to homelessness and that it is a "care first, jails last" jurisdiction. "Staff view Berkeley's new encampment policy as part of our broader commitment to creating safe, healthy, and compassionate communities," the 2024 memo from City Manager Paul Buddenhagen states. "We will continue to prioritize a housing-first approach while addressing the immediate safety risks posed by encampments." Advocacy groups have pushed back on encampment removal enforcements -- not always successfully. In April, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled largely in favor of Berkeley in a separate but similar suit, allowing the city to continue encampment removals without a mandate to secure shelter or provide city-sanctioned campsites, Courthouse News Service reported. The pending class action, filed by the by Disability Rights Advocates and East Bay Community Law Center on behalf of plaintiffs and the non-profit unhoused advocacy organization Where Do We Go, argues that the city discriminates against unhoused people with disabilities by failing to provide reasonable accommodation, and unlawfully destroys potentially life-saving belongings of the unhoused people it removes. "The record contains abundant -- and troubling -- anecdotal evidence of an enforcement framework weighted in favor of property disposal," U.S. District Judge Edward Chen wrote in his July 14 ruling. "These facts help illustrate both the breadth of the risk faced by the class, and the severity of the actual harms arising from the City's challenged property seizure and destruction framework." California, the nation's largest state, had the highest population of people experiencing homelessness in 2025 with 181,934. It recorded a nearly 3% decline in overall homelessness compared with 2024. [GN] BIOLIFE SOLUTIONS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Repligen Corp ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating BioLife Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLFS) related to its sale to Repligen Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, BioLife shareholders are expected to receive $11.25 per share in cash and 0.1442 shares of Repligen common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/biolife-solutions-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] BLACKROCK TCP CAPITAL: Curran Suit Transferred to D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Richard Curran, Meredith Jones, Antonio Inoa, Claude Comegna, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BlackRock TCP Capital Corp., Robert G DiPaolo, John Does 1-5, Case No. 9:26-cv-80171 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on July 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00893-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. BlackRock TCP Capital Corp. -- https://www.tcpcapital.com/ -- is an externally-managed specialty finance company focused on middle-market lending.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 BNBUILDERS INC: Class Cert. Bid in Schlueter Due Jan. 25, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Schlueter, individually and as representative of a class of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the BNBuilders, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. BNBuilders Inc., Brad Bastian, Casey R. Blake, Jason Limp, the BNBuilders, Inc. Board of Directors, GreatBanc Trust Company, Jeffrey Sebenik, James L. Charpentier, Steven James Awford, Michael Sean Herzog, Ross Hawkinson Brown, Daniel Huber, Tony Alejandro Castillo, Case No. 2:25-cv-01713-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order granting the stipulation and proposed schedule as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Defendants to file a motion Aug. 4, 2026 to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint: Motion for class certification: Jan. 25, 2027 Close of fact discovery: Feb. 24, 2027 Opposition to class certification: Feb. 24, 2027 Daubert and dispositive motion deadline: July 9, 2027 Bnbuilders offers preconstruction, sustainability, virtual design, and project delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gqLsxf at no extra charge.[CC] BOONE MOUNTAIN: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boone Mountain Sports, LLC. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Boone Mountain Sports, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06185-MKV (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boone Mountain Sports -- https://www.boonemountainsports.com/ -- offers the finest selection of ski and snowboard equipment, outdoor clothing, sportswear gear, ski and snowboard rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid in Hettinger OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA HETTINGER, v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge James Boasberg entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part; 2. Two classes are certified under Federal Rule of Procedure 23(b)(3) with the following class definitions: a. Drip-Pricing Class: "All current and former residential tenants at a Bozzuto managed property who filed a rental application while Bozzuto managed that property and who were charged or paid a Service Fee or variable utility charges between Dec. 5, 2020, and Aug. 27, 2025"; and b. Overcharge Class: "All current and former residential tenants of the Properties at a Bozzuto-managed property in the District of Columbia who were charged or paid a per-1,000 gallon rate for water or sewer service greater than the operative Multi-Family rates set out in D.C.M.R. tit. 21, section 4100.3 (water) and section 4101.1 (sewer), as amended at any point since Dec. 5, 2020"; 3. The Plaintiff's motion to appoint class representative is granted; 4. The Plaintiff's motion to appoint class counsel is granted; 5. The Defendant shall produce the names and contact information of class members by Aug. 5, 2026; and 6. The Plaintiff shall file a notice plan by Sept. 4, 2026. Bozzuto is engaged in renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UTOJq3 at no extra charge.[CC] BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA HETTINGER, v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered a judgment that will grant the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to two damages classes, motion to appoint class representative, and motion to appoint Class Counsel. The Court will further order Bozzuto to produce the names and contact information of class members by Aug. 5, 2026, and Hettinger to file a notice plan by Sept. 4, 2026. The Court concludes that Hettinger's proposed classes are appropriately defined and distill specific legal theories applicable to all class members regardless of minor factual differences. It will thus certify classes to permit current and former tenants to aggregate their relatively small claims for monetary damages. As a former tenant, however, the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek forward-looking injunctive relief, and the Court will not certify classes for that purpose. The Court will thus grant her Motion in part and appoint Hettinger as the representative for the damages classes and her attorneys as class counsel. Hettinger seeks to certify two classes: Rule 23(b)(2): for injunctive relief and Rule 23(b) 3): for monetary damages: The "Drip-Pricing Class" and the "Overcharge Class." Drip-Pricing Class: "All current and former residential tenants at a Bozzuto managed property who filed a rental application while Bozzuto managed that property and who were charged or paid a Service Fee or variable utility charges between Dec. 5, 2020, and Aug. 27, 2025." Overcharge Class: "All current and former residential tenants of the Properties at a Bozzuto-managed property in the District of Columbia who were charged or paid a per-1,000 gallon rate for water or sewer service greater than the lawfully established regulatory cap at any point since Dec. 5, 2020." Bozzuto was founded in 1988. The company's line of business includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ESSGM2 at no extra charge.[CC] BURNSVILLE APARTMENTS: Tenant Sue Over Unsafe Living Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------- 24-7 Press Release reports that on July 17, 2026, a current tenant filed a proposed class action against the landlords of Glen at Burnsville Apartments, alleging that tenants were lured in with advertised rental prices that did not reflect the true monthly cost of living at the property. The lawsuit names Priderock Capital Partners, LLC, Priderock Capital Management, LLC, PRCP-Minnesota I, LLC, and PRCP-Minnesota Stone, LLC, which collectively own and operate Glen at Burnsville. The lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief related to undisclosed, nonoptional fees, improperly apportioned utilities, and serious habitability concerns. The action is brought on behalf of tenants who executed a lease agreement with the Glen at Burnsville landlords within the past six years, as well as multiple subclasses. The Complaint alleges that Glen at Burnsville deceptively advertised apartments at prices lower than what tenants were actually required to pay each month by omitting mandatory charges from the advertised rent. According to the Complaint, some of those charges were "junk" fees that increased the landlords' revenue while providing no meaningful benefit to tenants. The Complaint also alleges that tenants were improperly charged for common-area utilities and that the landlords breached the covenants of habitability by failing to maintain controlled-access buildings and by failing to adequately address pest infestations. "No tenant should be forced to discover after signing a lease that the advertised rent was not the real price of their home," said Alexandra M. Robinson, one of the attorneys representing the tenants. "We believe Glen at Burnsville used undisclosed, mandatory fees to make apartments appear more affordable than they actually were, while also failing to provide tenants with the safe and habitable housing they were promised. Through this case, tenants seek to recover the money they were unlawfully charged and to stop these practices going forward." Plaintiffs are represented by Alexandra M. Robinson and Michele R. Fisher of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, which has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California. The case is titled: Miller v. Priderock Capital Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 19WS-CV-26-808 (Dakota County, Minnesota First Judicial District). Additional information about the case can be found at nka.com/GlenAtBurnsville or by emailing the case clerk, Kyle Leonard at kleonard@nka.com. They can also call Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492. Nichols Kaster, PLLP, an employee, consumer, and civil rights firm has dedicated over 50 years to fighting for clients in individual and class action matters. With offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California, the firm is perfectly situated for the work it does representing plaintiffs in cases across the country. The firm has recently received a First Tier ranking on the 2026 Best Law Firms List in Minneapolis for Litigation-Labor and Employment by U.S. News-Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms. Contact Information Alexandra Robinson, Esq. Nichols Kaster, PLLP Minneapolis, MN Telephone: 612-256-3263 [GN] CABIN CREEK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of reports of a possible Cabin Creek Health Systems data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who believe their information may have been put at risk, including current and former Cabin Creek Health Systems patients and employees. Reports Emerge of Cabin Creek Health Systems Security Incident Cabin Creek Health Systems, a healthcare group based in West Virginia, has allegedly suffered a data breach. According to a July 23, 2026 post on dark web monitoring platform Ransomware.live, hacker group INC Ransom claimed it was behind the alleged attack on Cabin Creek Health, which is estimated to have occurred the same day. Similarly, cybersecurity platform HookPhish reported that the supposed July 23 breach was attributed to INC Ransom. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the scope or nature of the unconfirmed Cabin Creek Health data breach was available. What You Can Do If you're affiliated with Cabin Creek Health Systems and suspect your information may have been put at risk, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Cabin Creek Health 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] CANADIAN TIRE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Massive Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo Finance reports that the law firms of KND Complex Litigation and Hammerco Lawyers LLP have commenced a proposed class action on behalf of all persons whose personal information was affected as a result of a massive data breach that affected customers of Canadian Tire in 2025. In October 2025, Canadian Tire disclosed a major data breach affecting its e-commerce database, reporting that the breach had affected over 40 million customer records. The customer information affected as a result of the data breach included personal details such as name, address, email and year of birth, as well as encrypted passwords and, in some cases, partial credit card information and full dates of birth, according to Canadian Tire. The affected customer records were reportedly posted for sale on the Dark Web. The proposed class action alleges that despite its history of being involved in customer data breaches, Canadian Tire failed to implement proper safeguards to fix known or knowable data security vulnerabilities and protect customer information. The lawsuit further alleges that Canadian Tire has failed to communicate properly regarding the causes of the data breach, the scope of the data breach and its impact on the customers, and the measures it has since introduced to prevent similar occurrences in the future. The proposed class action seeks to discover the facts regarding the data breach, promote corporate accountability and data governance practices across Canada's retail sector, which is entrusted with highly sensitive personal information of Canadians, and recover compensation for affected customers. For more information regarding the lawsuit and to register for updates, visit https://knd.law/canadian-tire-consumer-privacy-data-breach-2025/ (KND) and https://hammerco.ca/services/class-actions/current-cases/canadian-tire-consumer-privacy-data-breach-2025/ (Hammerco). [GN] CARRIER GLOBAL: Continues to Defend HVAC Antitrust Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from HVAC antitrust class suits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It has been named as a defendant in putative class-action lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws beginning in March 2026, on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers of HVAC equipment. These lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and generally allege that it and other industry participants have engaged in an unlawful agreement to fix or raise the prices of certain HVAC products in the United States since Jan. 1, 2020. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages under applicable federal and state antitrust statutes, as well as injunctive relief and an award of attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the allegations asserted in these putative class actions lack merit and that it has meritorious defenses to the claims. At this time, it is unable to assess the probability of liability or to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss arising from these matters. It cautions that there can be no assurance that any future exposure related to these proceedings will not be material in any given reporting period. Carrier Global Corp. is a global provider of heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, fire, security and building automation technologies for residential, commercial and industrial customers. The company designs, manufactures and services equipment and systems aimed at improving building efficiency, safety and sustainability worldwide. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Lunstrum Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Centene Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Lunstrum securities class suit and shareholder derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A putative federal securities class action, Brock Lunstrum v. Centene Corp., et al. (the Securities Action), was filed on July 9, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in this action allege that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding its 2025 earnings guidance in violation of federal securities laws. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against the claims asserted in the Securities Action. The Securities Action remains subject to many uncertainties, including the duration of the litigation, the potential filing of additional lawsuits asserting similar claims, and the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. An adverse result in the Securities Action could have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow, or liquidity. Additionally, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits (the Derivative Actions) were subsequently filed against the Company, as a nominal defendant, along with members of its board of directors and certain officers. These actions consist of Franchi v. London, et al. (filed July 31, 2025), Keippel v. London, et al. (filed Aug. 14, 2025), and Shipon v. London, et al. (filed Aug. 26, 2025) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Nante v. London, et al. (filed Sept. 30, 2025) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Rosenbaum v. London, et al. (filed Jan. 30, 2026) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the same statements at issue in the Securities Action. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself and the individual defendants in these derivative matters. As with the Securities Action, the Derivative Actions are subject to significant uncertainty, and an adverse outcome in any of these matters could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow, or liquidity. Centene Corp. is a diversified, multinational healthcare enterprise that provides government-sponsored and commercial healthcare programs, focusing on underinsured and uninsured individuals. It offers managed care services to Medicaid, Medicare, and other health program participants across the United States and select international markets. CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Seeks Mandamus Review of Beryl MDL Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources 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 28, 2026, that CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking appellate review of the multidistrict litigation pretrial court's denial of the dispositive motions on the plaintiffs' gross negligence claims in the former Hurricane Beryl putative class actions. The Company and its subsidiaries CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC and Houston Electric are subject to current and potential future litigation and claims arising out of Hurricane Beryl, which could include allegations of personal injury, wrongful death, property damage, various economic losses in connection with loss of power, unlawful business practices, and other theories. Following the hurricane, several putative class actions were filed against CenterPoint Energy and/or Houston Electric in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of individuals or entities who claimed losses due to power outages lasting at least 48 hours as a result of the storm. These putative class actions consisted of proposed classes of all restaurants in Harris County, Galveston County, and Montgomery County, all residential customers, and all health, wellness, medical and beauty facilities in Harris County, and asserted claims and theories of negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, fraud, and alleged violations of Houston Electric's tariff for retail delivery service. Each of these actions sought damages in excess of $100 million for business interruption, property damage and loss, cost of repair, loss of use and market value, lost income, nuisance, extreme mental anguish, and punitive damages. On July 30, 2025, the plaintiffs in the putative class action on behalf of all residential customers nonsuited without prejudice all claims and causes of action. In addition, the plaintiffs in the other two putative class actions amended their petitions to remove all class action allegations and instead asserted only individual claims of negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, and alleged intentional misconduct. One of those lawsuits was brought by approximately 220 individually named plaintiffs, and the other included approximately 50 individually named plaintiffs. In addition to these former putative class actions, thirteen individual actions were pending in Harris County District Courts, asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, negligent undertaking, and gross negligence against CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC, and/or Houston Electric. Certain plaintiffs in those actions alleged wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage and sought damages in excess of $1 million each. Six of the thirteen additional lawsuits were brought on behalf of a collective group of approximately 465 individuals or entities who claimed losses due to power outages, with damages in excess of $1 million being sought in five of those suits and in excess of $5 million being sought in the sixth suit. These cases have been or will be transferred to the designated MDL pretrial court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC, and/or Houston Electric filed dispositive motions in the two former putative class action cases and certain individual actions challenging the legal sufficiency of the claims. On Dec. 1, 2025, the MDL pretrial court granted Houston Electric's dispositive motion in one individual action brought by a business alleging losses due to a power outage following Hurricane Beryl. Following this ruling, that action, as well as two other actions in which the plaintiffs alleged losses due to power outages following the hurricane, were dismissed or nonsuited. On Jan. 28, 2026, the MDL pretrial court denied dispositive motions filed by CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC, and/or Houston Electric in individual actions alleging personal injury or property damage. Houston Electric filed notices of appeal of these orders, and briefing in its appeal in the property damage case has been completed. The claims against CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric in the related personal injury case were subsequently nonsuited, and the associated appeal was dismissed. After that appeal was dismissed, the personal injury plaintiff again filed suit against CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric, renewing the litigation over personal injury claims related to Hurricane Beryl. On March 19, 2026, the MDL pretrial court ruled on the dispositive motions of CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric in the two former putative class actions, granting those motions as to the plaintiffs' claims for negligence, fraud, and nuisance but denying them as to the plaintiffs' gross negligence claims. On June 19, 2026, CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking appellate review of the MDL pretrial court's denial of the dispositive motions on the plaintiffs' gross negligence claims in the former putative class actions. The Company has stated that CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC, and Houston Electric intend to vigorously defend themselves against all of the lawsuits arising from Hurricane Beryl. CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries maintain general and excess liability insurance policies that provide coverage for third-party bodily injury and property damage claims. However, given the nature of some of the allegations, certain insurers have disputed, and additional insurers may in the future dispute coverage for some types of claims or categories of alleged damages asserted in these proceedings. In a separate but related matter, the Company also faces ongoing litigation and investigations arising from the February 2021 Winter Storm Event. Various legal proceedings remain pending against numerous entities, including CenterPoint Energy, Houston Electric, and CERC. Like other Texas energy companies and TDUs, CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric have become involved in investigations, litigation, and other regulatory and legal proceedings regarding their efforts to restore power during the storm and their compliance with NERC, ERCOT, and PUCT rules and directives. Additionally, like other natural gas market participants, CERC has been named in litigation alleging gas market manipulation. CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, and Houston Electric, along with hundreds of other defendants such as ERCOT, power generation companies, other TDUs, natural gas producers, REPs, and other entities, received claims and lawsuits filed by plaintiffs alleging wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, and other injuries and damages. As of June 30, 2026, approximately 220 pending lawsuits were consolidated in Texas state court in Harris County, Texas, as part of the MDL proceeding related to the February 2021 Winter Storm Event. CenterPoint Energy and Houston Electric, together with numerous other entities, have been named as defendants in approximately 150 of those lawsuits, in which plaintiffs asserted negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, and other causes of action against CenterPoint Energy, Utility Holding, and Houston Electric. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. is an energy delivery company serving electric and natural gas customers across multiple U.S. states through its regulated utility subsidiaries. It provides electricity transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution, and related energy services to residential, commercial, and industrial customers. CF FOR LA: Underpays Workers, Fuentes Says ------------------------------------------ JORGE LUIS FUENTES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CF FOR LA, LLC; THE CLOSET FACTORY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22705 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendants on Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf of a class of individuals who are and were employed as non-exempt or hourly-paid employees throughout California pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things, failing to pay all wages; failing to provide meal periods or pay meal period premiums; failing to authorize or permit rest periods or pay rest period premiums; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff further alleges Defendants' engagement in unfair and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff is a California resident and was employed by Defendants in Los Angeles, California as a non-exempt closet installer assistant from approximately December 2020 to approximately December 2025. CF for LA, LLC is a business entity doing business under the name "Closet Factory," which applied for commercial signage permits in the Los Angeles area in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506 Telephone: (213) 493-6300 Facsimile: (213) 336-3704 E-mail: fawn@abramsonlabor.com CLAY LABS: Violates Right of Publicity, Burzawa Says ---------------------------------------------------- ANNA BURZAWA, JOANN DAVIS, SRUTI BHAUMIK, BRIAN HEINZ, MAXX MILLS, AMARA PHILEBAUM, TYREE CALDWELL, JAMES HURD, and REX WAER, individually and as representatives of classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. CLAY LABS INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000832 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 18, 2026) seeks statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief from Clay Labs for violations of their right of publicity as protected by statutes in states including Illinois, California, Indiana, and Alabama. Clay Labs is a New York-based technology company incorporated in Delaware that operates an AI-powered go-to market data and workflow automation platform. It offers a limited version of its platform for free and provides more expansive versions for a subscription price. For all versions, Clay Labs provides prospective subscribers with a 14-day free trial. According to the complaint, Clay Labs uses its 14-day free trial to incentivize unsubscribed users to upgrade to a paid subscription. During the free trial, users gain access to the Clay Labs web application and can search for individuals using filters including name, company, job title, and location. The platform surfaces a list of named individuals matching those filters, displaying each person's first name, last name, employer, company location, and work email address. Despite failing to obtain consent from Plaintiffs and the Classes, Clay Labs nevertheless utilized their personal identifying information for the purpose of enticing users to enter into paid premium subscriptions for additional access to personal data contained in the platform, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs and the Classes have no relationship with Clay Labs and have never subscribed to or used Clay Labs' platform. More importantly, the Plaintiffs and the Classes never provided Clay Labs with consent to use their identities to advertise premium subscriptions to Clay Labs' platform. The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint seeking an order (i) declaring that Clay Labs' conduct violates state statutes, (ii) requiring that Clay Labs cease the unlawful activities and enjoin Clay Labs from committing such unlawful activities in the future, (iii) awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes statutory damages in amounts prescribed by the respective statutes per violation or an amount equal to actual damages/profits, whichever is greater, and (iv) an award for punitive damages, if warranted, and attorneys' fees and costs where permitted by law.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 E-mail: psolberg@andersonwanca.com bwanca@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS: Christian Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clover Health Investments, Corp. The case is styled as Gregory Christian, Sharon J. Cox, Barbara Palermo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Clover Health Investments, Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01035 (M.D. Tenn., July 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Clover Health Investments, Corp. -- https://www.cloverhealth.com/ -- is an American health care company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. Tricia Herzfeld, Esq. HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Phone: (615) 800-6225 Fax: (615) 994-8625 Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com tricia@hsglawgroup.com CME GROUP: Appeal Filed After Defense Verdict in Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CME Group 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 24, 2026, that on July 25, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts with regards to a putative class action complaint was filed on Jan. 15, 2014, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against CME Group Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. On June 15, 2026, the court denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motions. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The complaint alleges breaches of core rights held by certain Class B equity holders and sets forth a lengthy procedural history culminating in a jury verdict for the defendants, denial of post-trial motions, and a pending appeal. The plaintiffs, certain Class B shareholders of CME Group and Class B members of CBOT, allege breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for violations of their core rights granted in the defendants' respective Certificates of Incorporation. On Dec. 2, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a damages-only class, allowing the claims to proceed on a class-wide basis as to damages. In early 2024, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. On April 16, 2025, the court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, and set the remaining claims for a jury trial. After a three-week trial, on July 25, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. On June 15, 2026, the court denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motions. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. CME Group Inc. is a global derivatives marketplace that offers futures, options, and other risk management products across major asset classes, including interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, energy, agricultural commodities, and metals. It operates exchanges such as CME, CBOT, NYMEX, and COMEX, providing trading, clearing, and related services to market participants worldwide. COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma County District Court Judge Amy Palumbo recently denied a motion to dismiss in a class action case against CompSource Mutual Insurance Company. Whitten Burrage attorneys representing thousands of Oklahoma businesses presented texts from 2024 as exhibits in open court, claiming Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready knew about CompSource's plan to reorganize before policyholders did. Mulready approved CompSource's reorganization plan in March, which led plaintiffs to sue. A class action case featuring thousands of Oklahoma businesses who have sued CompSource Mutual Insurance Company moves forward after Oklahoma County District Court Judge Amy Palumbo denied a motion to dismiss at a recent court hearing. The denial came after Whitten Burrage attorneys representing the businesses presented texts from 2024 as exhibits in open court this month. Acquired through an open records request by Whitten Burrage, those texts showed Oklahoma House Insurance Committee member Rep. T.J. Marti, R-Broken Arrow, and Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready discussing CompSource's intention to reorganize as a stock company and House Bill 3090, which allowed Mulready to unilaterally approve such a plan. Marti had asked Mulready if his office had requested the bill and whether it was related to some larger issue or intended to respond to a single company's wishes. "This is not our bill but is a (Rep. Mark Tedford, R-Tulsa) bill," Mulready wrote. "I did some checking and I understand it's a request from CompSource. This would allow them to raise (money) to expand into other lines of business." Marti thanked Mulready for the heads up, then Mulready responded, informing Marti that CompSource only underwrites worker's compensation. "They've been talking for a while now about expanding their offerings," Mulready wrote. That conversation occurred the same day former House Speaker Charles McCall referred HB 3090 to the House Insurance Committee for consideration but before any CompSource policyholders were notified of reorganization plans. "Oklahoma policyholders deserve a regulator who is truly independent and unbiased, and who works for the consumers instead of the insurance companies," Whitten Burrage attorney Hannah Whitten said in a press release. The plaintiff businesses involved in the class action sued CompSource in March, shortly after Mulready approved CompSource's reorganization plan. The plaintiffs alleged the plan amounted to a breach of trust and a breach of fiduciary duty. "CompSource's plan and its messaging on such plan have been haphazard, unclear, and confusing," Whitten Burrage attorneys wrote in a brief. "CompSource has failed to provide proper notice and has put out confusing messaging. Furthermore, the plan of reorganization and associated documents, including the policyholder statement, are misleading, vague, and so oblique as to effectively conceal the practical financial consequence of a conflict of interest on policyholders." In response, CompSource attorneys argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs' complaint ought to have been brought before the Oklahoma Insurance Department instead of a county district court. "The OID has sole jurisdiction to determine the validity of (CompSource Mutual's reorganization plan) and if plaintiffs disagree with the OID's conclusion, they should have appealed that decision to the courts -- a sufficient remedy." However, Palumbo disagreed. "The text messages and the missed statutory deadlines all point in the same direction," Whitten said. "We are grateful that Judge Palumbo has allowed this case to move forward so that the full story can be told." [GN] COOL RUNNING HEATING: Bishop Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cool Running Heating and Air, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Wyatt Bishop, Gelacio Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cool Running Heating and Air, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 26CV017600 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Cool Running Air is a trusted HVAC contractor based in Hialeah, FL, specializing in 24/7 AC repair, installation, and maintenance services for both residential and commercial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine A. Rabago, Esq. ARNS DAVIS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom St., Fl. 3 San Francisco, CA 94105-3177 Phone: 415-495-7800 Fax: 415-495-7888 Email: kar@arnslaw.com CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Building Brands Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Leonidas Argueta Ramos, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cornerstone Building Brands Services, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. 26CV017575 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Cornerstone Building Brands -- https://www.cornerstonebuildingbrands.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer of exterior building products serving the residential and low-rise non-residential markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Gordon, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E El Segundo Blvd., Ste. 403 El Segundo, CA 90245-4519 Phone: 310-531-1900 Fax: 310-531-1901 Email: mgordon@maternlawgroup.com DELICIAS RESTAURANT: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delicias Restaurant & Seafood Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maria Virgen Perez Lopez, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Delicias Restaurant & Seafood Inc. doing business as: Delicias Restaurant & Seafood, Hordaliza Paredes, Jose Cortes Lopez, Case No. 1:26-cv-06198 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Delicias Restaurant & Seafood Inc. is a casual eatery serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner including Dominican specialties such as mofongo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com DELTA AIR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Valdovinos Due June 1, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIREYA VALDOVINOS, v. DELTA AIR LINES INC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02026-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Vaughan entered an order setting the following case schedule through class certification: Event Date Deadline for joining parties: Oct. 13, 2026 Reports of expert witnesses under Mar. 15, 2027 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: All motions related to class Apr. 13, 2027 certification discovery must be filed by this date and noted for consideration (pursuant to LCR7(d)): Class certification discovery to be May 13, 2027 completed by: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file June 1, 2027 motion for class certification and report of class certification expert: Deadline for the Defendant to file July 13, 2027 opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Aug. 3, 2027 Reply re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: If this case settles, the plaintiff's counsel shall notify Stefanie Prather at (206) 370-8420 or via email at: Stefanie_Prather@wawd.uscourts.gov, as soon as possible. Pursuant to LCR 11(b), an attorney who fails to give the Deputy Clerk prompt notice of settlement may be subject to such discipline as the Court deems appropriate. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all parties of record. Delta Air is a provider of scheduled air transportation for passengers and cargo. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MnAuDJ at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA GALIL: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delta Galil Premium Brands, LLC d/b/a 7 For All Mankind, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03346 (D. Minn., July 20, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.7forallmankind.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; as well as a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. Delta Galil Premium Brands LLC owns the website which offers apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, denim, shorts, sweaters, jackets, hats, belts, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Destiny Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS, LLC dba LEXITAS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV14483 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08076. On May 5, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following eight causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Janelle J. Sahouria, Esq. Emmalee M. McCarthy, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Janelle.Sahouria@jacksonlewis.com Emmalee.McCarthy@jacksonlewis.com - and - Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com DIAMOND PARKING: Mayo Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CANDICE MAYO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIAMOND PARKING, INC. and DIAMOND PARKING SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26CU026754C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01315-ILRL-KWR. The Plaintiff alleges that Diamond Parking operates self-parking facilities in California where it issues "Parking Owed" notices to drivers who do not pay at the time of parking, purportedly in violation of California law. The Plaintiff asserts five causes of action: (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (3) violation of the False Advertising Law; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Diamond Parking, Inc. provides parking services. The Company offers temporary parking usually on an hourly, daily, or monthly contract or fee basis in garages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason C. Hamilton, Esq. Elizabeth Sanchez Santiago, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105-0908 Telephone: (415) 318-2770 Facsimile: (424) 731-8301 E-mail: hamiltonj@ballardspahr.com sanchezsantiagoe@ballardspahr.com - and - D. Michael Reilly, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 Facsimile: (206) 223-7107 E-mail: reillym@ballardspahr.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Seeks Denial of Walker Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WALKER, PEARL IRENE WISE, and TAMI HUNTER-NEAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation; dba MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 1:23-cv-00349-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Jan. 22, 2027, at 10:00 a.m., will move for an order denying class certification as to all of the causes of action set forth in the Plaintiff Pearl Irene Wise's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to establish the Rule 23 requirements because: (1) individualized issues predominate; (2) MMC's affirmative defenses require individualized inquiries; (3) the Plaintiff is neither adequate nor typical of the proposed rounding class; and (4) class litigation is not manageable or the superior method of litigation, thereby making certification inappropriate. Dignity is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FCgoUo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Richard J. Simmons, Esq. Jason W. Kearnaghan, Esq. Hilary A. Habib, Esq. Khesraw Karmand, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3460 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: 213-620-1398 E-mail: rsimmons@sheppard.com jkearnaghan@sheppard.com hhabib@sheppard.com kkarmand@sheppard.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Walker Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WALKER, PEARL IRENE WISE, and TAMI HUNTER-NEAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation dba MERCY MEDICAL CENTER – MERCED, and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 1:23-cv-00349-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 22, 2027, will seek an Order certifying a class action, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("F.R.C.P.") Rules 23 (a), (b)(1) and (b)(3), as to the following classes: Class Definition: "All non-exempt hourly employees of the Defendant who worked at the Mercy Medical Center Merced facility at least one (1) day from May 31, 2018, through the date of class certification order, except as described herein." Class 1: "All non-exempt hourly employees of the Defendant who worked at least one (1) day at the Mercy Medical Center Merced facility from May 31, 2018, through July 23, 2023 whose meal period punches were subject to the Defendant's rounding practice" ("Rounded Meal Period Class"); Sub-Class 1: "All hourly non-exempt employees of the Defendant who worked at Mercy Medical Center Merced facility at least one (1) day from May 31, 2018, through the date of class certification order, who were required to remain on premises for their meal periods" ("On-Premises Meal Period Subclass"); Class 2: "All non-exempt hourly employees of the Defendant who worked at least one (1) day at Mercy Medical Center Merced facility at any time from May 31, 2018, through the date of class certification, who were not provided with 10-minute rest periods for every 4 hours of work or major fraction thereof" ("Rest Break Class") Sub-Class 2: "All California employees who worked for the Defendant from May 31, 2018, through the date of class certification order who were required to remain on premises and/or on-duty during their rest periods" ("On-Premises/On-Duty Rest Period Class"); Class 3: "All non-exempt hourly employees of the Defendant who worked at least one (1) day at the Mercy Medical Center Merced facility from July 13, 2021, through the date of class certification order who were provided a paystub (a.k.a. wage statement) from the Defendant" ("Pay Stub Class"). (This is a derivative class for all classes and sub-classes). Class 4: "All California based non-exempt hourly employees of the Defendant who worked for the Defendant at any time from Sept. 8, 2021, through the date of class certification, who are no longer employed by the Defendant and were not paid all their earned wages" ("Waiting Time Penalty Class"). (This is a derivative class for all classes and sub-classes). Further, the Plaintiff requests that: 1. Pearl Irene Wise be determined to be suitable a class representative. 2. Janelle Carney of Janelle Carney – Attorney at Law, APC and Robert L. Starr, Manny Starr and Adam M. Rose, of Frontier Law Center be appointed class counsel. Dignity is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bUGp5l at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janelle Carney, Esq. JANELLE CARNEY – ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 1355 N. Mentor Ave., No. 40137 Pasadena, CA 91104 Telephone: (909) 521-9609 E-mail: janelle@janellecarneylaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. Adam M. Rose, Esq. Manny M. Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 470 Woodland Hills CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com manny@frontierlawcenter.com DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tarin Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ISRAT TARIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOCTUSUSA INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-07493-SVK (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2026) is an action arising from the 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. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the ransomware group "Deadlock" accessed Defendant's network and systems and exfiltrated Private Information of Defendant's clients' current and former patients, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated and Defendant insufficiently protected computer systems in the Data Breach, resulting in cybercriminals having unfettered access and, upon information and belief, the exfiltration of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private information. The Defendant failed to implement reasonable industry standard cybersecurity safeguards sufficient to detect malicious activity in a timely manner, including monitoring, logging, and alerting systems such as EDR, XDR, data loss prevention tools, and centralized alerting and logging. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. DoctusUSA Inc. 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: Joshua D. Samra, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (341) 217-0550 Email: jsamra@stranchlaw.com DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Williams Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMKIREA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOCTUSUSA INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-07501 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and protected health information of current and former patients of healthcare providers that use Doctus and current and former Doctus employees. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on or about June 10, 2026, ransomware gang Deadlock publicly claimed responsibility for a cyberattack against Doctus. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiffs and other current and former patients of healthcare providers that use Doctus and current and former Doctus employees (the "Data Breach"). Doctus failed to implement practices and systems in order to mitigate against the risks posed by Doctus's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiffs and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, alleges the suit. DoctusUSA Inc. 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: Ray S. Seilie, Esq. KINSELLA HOLLEY ISER KUMP STEINSAPIR LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 566-9800 Facsimile: (310) 566-9850 Email: RSeilie@khiks.com - and - Israel David, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Thomas Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenric Thomas, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV17641 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08018. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 9 purported causes of action for: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in Violation of Cal. Labor Codes and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Andrew W. Russell, Esq. Sutton T. McCann, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com arussell@mcguirewoods.com smccann@mcguirewoods.com DOLLAR TREE STORES: Patterson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexus Patterson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.; FAMILY; DOLLAR, INC.; DOLLAR TREE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-17468-7 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02581. The Complaint sets forth ten causes of action against Defendants: alleged Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled and Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of RCW 49.46.090 and RCW 49.46.130; alleged Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of RCW 49.46.130; alleged Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of WAC 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; alleged Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; alleged Willful Withholding of and/or Refusal to Pay Wages in Violation of RCW 49.52.050 and RCW 49.52.070; alleged Failure to Accrue, Allow Use of, and Properly Compensate Paid Sick Leave in Violation of RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620; alleged Failure to Pay Wages Due at Established Pay Periods in Violation of RCW 49.46 et seq. and WAC 296 126-023; alleged Failure to Pay Wages Owed at Termination of Employment in Violation of RCW 49.48.010 and RCW 49.52.070; alleged Failure to Furnish Itemized and Complete Wage Statements in Violation of WAC 296-126-040; and alleged Failure to Maintain Adequate Records in Violation of WAC 296-128-010, WAC 296-126-050, and RCW 49.26.070.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (425) 521-5121 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: joanna@calljustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq. Elena Gutbrod, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: bblackburn@littler.com egutbrod@littler.com DOT FOODS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unfair Pay Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Cox of WLDS reports that a former Dot Foods employee from Winchester has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the Mount Sterling-based food distributor, alleging the company failed to properly compensate hourly employees for all time worked. The lawsuit was filed July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield by Brenden Clanton. Clanton is represented by attorney Robi J. Baishnab of the Ohio employment law firm Nilges Draher LLC. According to the complaint, Dot Foods violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by allegedly editing, rounding or otherwise modifying employee time records in a way that resulted in unpaid wages and overtime. The lawsuit also alleges employees were not compensated for time spent putting on and removing required freezer suits before and after their shifts. The complaint seeks to certify both a federal collective action and Illinois class actions on behalf of current and former hourly employees who may have been affected by the company's pay practices. The suit seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and other relief permitted under state and federal law. The allegations contained in the lawsuit have not been proven in court. Dot Foods had not filed a response to the complaint, and the court has not yet ruled on whether the case will proceed as a class action. [GN] DOW INC: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Class Action Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dow 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 24, 2026, that it is currently facing a putative securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan filed on Aug. 29, 2025. Derivative suits have been stayed pending its resolution. The class action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified compensatory damages. On March 31, 2026, an amended complaint was submitted that names the company, its then Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants. An amended pleading alleged these defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the company's ability to sustain its dividend, which allegedly caused its securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class. Additionally, four putative shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on Sept. 5, 2025, Sept. 11, 2025, Sept. 18, 2025, and Nov. 21, 2025 based on alleged facts and circumstances similar to the referenced securities class action and named the company's then Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, then Chief Operating Officer, and members of its Board of Directors as defendants. Another shareholder derivative action based on similar facts and circumstances was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on April 20, 2026, naming the same individuals as the Michigan derivative suits, except the then Chief Operating Officer. These assert claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, and other related claims, and that they seek to recover damages on behalf of the company. All of the derivative actions either have been stayed or are in the process of being stayed pending resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class action case. Dow Inc. is a global materials science company serving packaging, infrastructure, mobility, and consumer markets with a broad portfolio of plastics, industrial intermediates, coatings, and silicones. It operates manufacturing sites and commercial operations worldwide, providing products and technologies used in a wide range of industrial and consumer applications. DRAFTKINGS INC: Calif. Illegal Gambling Suit Likely to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Attridge of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge said Thursday, July 23, a class action claiming fantasy sports website DraftKings is conducting illegal gambling in California is likely to move forward, queuing up a legal fight over whether the court can prohibit paid daily fantasy sports in the state. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer revealed his initial impression is that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case and the games at issue are prohibited by state law. The judge appeared to agree with DraftKings users' claims that they suffered economic injury by putting their money toward fantasy sports contests misrepresented to them as legal in California. "If in fact [plaintiff] can establish that he wouldn't have parted with the money but for the misrepresentation, it then is material. And if it's material, misrepresentation in which he parted with money, he's been injured," the Bill Clinton appointee said. The lead plaintiffs, two DraftKings users, sued the fantasy sports website in June 2025, claiming the company misrepresents the lawfulness of their daily fantasy sports contests in California, a state that prohibits commercial gambling. Breyer noted for the dismissal motion, he would assume the challenged games were unlawful in California, a claim that DraftKings denies. Attorney Richard Patch of Coblentz Patch, representing DraftKings, argued the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't suffer economic injury. Patch said arguments that the users would not have played the game if not for DraftKings' supposed misrepresentation about the legality of the games were not material to the case because they got the game they paid for. "They got a game that they wanted to participate in, and it went by the exact rules that were represented; it did work, they either lost or they won and they took the money," Patch said. "They did that for 10 years in this state, and now they say, 'We suffered economic injury because when we were doing it we thought it was legal and now we may not think it is legal.'" Breyer questioned Patch on why DraftKings heavily advertises the legality of its games in California if representations about its legal status were immaterial to consumers' decision to play the games. "The fact is your client spent a lot of money telling people in California that it's legal, when in fact the attorney general has said the opposite . . . It's hard to believe it's not material; if it's not material, why advertise it?" he asked, adding: "Some people do care about not engaging in conduct that is illegal." In July 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an opinion saying that state law "prohibits the operation of daily fantasy sports games with players physically located within California, regardless of where the operators and associated technology are located." However, attorney general opinions are only advisory and not legally binding. Wesley Griffith of Almeida Law Group, an attorney for the plaintiffs, noted other service providers in the state such as Amazon don't have to repeatedly make statements about the legality of their platform. "You don't spend a bunch of time on your website assuring consumers what you're offering is legal unless you believe that is a sticking point that you're going to lose transactions for," he said. "Reasonable consumers understand gaming is highly regulated and the representations here were clearly material to the transaction." In their complaint, lead plaintiffs Zhicheng Zhen and Jonathan Smith argue DraftKings violated the state's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedy Act. In their amended complaint, they tacked on additional violations of state law, RICO claims and requested declaratory relief. While Breyer seemed unconvinced by the plaintiffs' RICO and stolen property claims, he indicated the plaintiffs' claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law would likely move forward and may allow injunctive relief. He added if he concludes the plaintiffs have standing and their claims avoid dismissal, the next step would be to consider a preliminary injunction blocking the games in the state of California. "If there is standing, and the game falls within the statute, I don't understand what the argument is about a general injunction that says you can't do it here," Breyer said. However, he noted the issue was "not for today." Breyer said he was likely to rule on the motion to dismiss within a week. Representatives for either party did not respond to a request for comment. In December 2025, Breyer dismissed the case with leave to amend because the plaintiffs were seeking equitable relief without demonstrating that monetary damages alone would be inadequate. The judge contrasted their request for equitable monetary relief with an injunction -- a common form of equitable relief that does not involve money. [GN] DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Broad Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nigel Broad, Eric Roth and Shelby Peake, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated Union Employees v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC; NBC UNIVERSAL DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC; ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV12065 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08081. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them and other class members straight and overtime wages. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they and other class members were not paid all straight and overtime hours due to pre-shift, post-shift, and other off-the clock work; because Defendants automatically deduct 30 minutes of work time each day; and because Defendants improperly rounded time to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the class members.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Seth E. Pierce, Esq. Stephen A. Rossi, Esq. Nick Baltaxe, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120 Phone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 Email: sep@msk.com sar@msk.com ngb@msk.com DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Dicesare Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Dicesare, an individual; and Letia Lewis, an individual, and on behalf of all other Union Aggrieved Employees v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC; NBC UNIVERSAL DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC; ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26NNCV02995 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08083. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them and other class members overtime wages. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they and other class members were not paid all straight and overtime hours due to pre-shift, post-shift, and other off-the-clock work..[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Seth E. Pierce, Esq. Stephen A. Rossi, Esq. Nick Baltaxe, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120 Phone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 Email: sep@msk.com sar@msk.com ngb@msk.com EASTERN GROUP: Hawk Seeks More Time To File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY HAWK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. EASTERN GROUP OF GAINESVILLE, INC., d/b/a Yamato Japanese Restaurant 1, Case No. 1:25-cv-00325-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for extension of time to file Rule 23 motion for class certification. The Plaintiff has been mindful of the current deadline to file his Rule 23 Motion. However, in light of the current Aug. 21, 2026, deadline for potential collective members to join and the fact that Notice still needs to be distributed to at least 14 individuals, the Plaintiff will need additional time subsequent to the July 15, 2026 deadline to file his Rule 23 Motion to allow time for additional discovery to be conducted with respect to any forthcoming opt-in Plaintiffs. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Plaintiff requests an extension of time up to Oct. 15, 2026, to file his Rule 23 Motion. At this time, Plaintiff does not seek an extension of the current discovery deadline of Oct. 15, 2026 or other deadlines. Therefore, this request will not disrupt the remaining deadlines and neither Party will be prejudiced by this request. On Oct. 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his Class/Collective action complaint seeking unpaid minimum wages and related damages under the FLSA and Florida law. On Nov. 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to include claims for retaliation under the FLSA and Florida law. Eastern Group is a privately-held company that operates in the restaurants industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwkRRN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: kimd@fortheopeople.com EDWARD E. MCNALLY: Dale Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward E. McNally. The case is styled as Anthony Dale, Johnna Fox, Benjamin Borrowman, Chad Hohenbery, Ann Lambert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Movants v. Edward E. McNally, Respondent, Case No. 2:26-mc-00063-MRP (E.D. Pa., July 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Miscellaneous for Motion to Compel. Edward E. McNally is a former United States Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney.[BN] The Movants are represented by: Jeremy Gradwohl, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-5801 Email: jgradwohl@bm.net EQUIPMENTSHARE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Parra v. EquipmentShare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-06288, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired EquipmentShare.com Inc. ("EquipmentShare" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EQPT): (a) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January, 2026 initial public offering ("IPO"); and/or (b) securities between January 23, 2026 and June 23, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). EquipmentShare investors have until September 21, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC. (EQPT) INVESTMENTS, visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/equipmentshare-com-inc/ TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On January 26, 2026, EquipmentShare conducted its IPO, selling 30.5 million shares of Class A common stock at a price of $24.50 per share. On June 24, 2026, before the market opened, Umibōzu Research, a stock market focused media outlet, published a report alleging, among other things, that "undisclosed related-party transactions . . . have netted" entities affiliated with EquipmentShare founders "at least $77 million, with the true figure potentially running substantially higher." The report states that the Company maintains a high-net-worth individuals and family-office channel "built around three undisclosed entities -- EZ Equipment Zone ('EZ'), Bevel Financial ('Bevel'), and Armada Fleet Management ('Armada')." The report details how the Company uses its OWN program to funnel significant fees and other payments to these related parties, and details a "web of 130 Schlacks-affiliated entities," which "have further enabled [this] rampant self dealing." The report concludes "a key reason OWN exists is to enrich the Schlacks, with interviews and corporate filings indicating they own and manage Bevel and Armada." On this news, EquipmentShare's stock price fell $1.58, or 6.62%, to close at $22.30 on June 24, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to decline on the subsequent trading day, falling $2.61 or 11.7% to close at $19.69 on June 25, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, EquipmentShare stock has traded as low as $16.06 per share, a more than 34.5% decline from the $24.50 per share IPO price. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company participated in additional undisclosed related party transactions; (2) the Company had not terminated or substantially reduce a number of the transactions with entities owned or controlled by the co-founders; (3) as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially misleading; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased EquipmentShare securities, have information or 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, visit https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/equipmentshare-com-inc/ or contact us at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[BN] ERNST & YOUNG: Agrees to Settle MOVEit Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Ernst & Young LLP and Bank of America have agreed to a $2,500,000 settlement to partially resolve a class action lawsuit over the May 2023 data breach affecting MOVEit, a file transfer software Ernst & Young used for handling sensitive information pertaining to Bank of America's customers. The $2.5 million class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 29, 2026. The deal covers all living individuals in the United States whose personally identifiable information was included in the files exchanged by Ernst & Young and Bank of America that were affected by the May 2023 MOVEit data breach. Court documents estimate that 198,667 people are covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the Ernst & Young and Bank of America MOVEit class action settlement can be found at MOVEitSettlementEYBOA.com. Settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $2,500 for documented "ordinary" losses incurred between May 31, 2023 and October 8, 2026 because of the MOVEit data breach. This benefit covers costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, identity theft insurance products, bank fees, long-distance phone charges, phone and data charges if charged based on the amount of time/data used, postage, gasoline and more. As part of this benefit, class members can claim reimbursement for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach at a rate of $25 per hour, subject to the $2,500 cap on ordinary-loss payments. Further, class members can submit a claim form to receive up to $10,000 for documented "extraordinary" losses incurred between May 31, 2023 and October 8, 2026 stemming from the breach. This benefit covers proven monetary losses and professional fees, including attorneys' fees, accountants' fees, and fees for credit repair services that are not already covered by another settlement benefit. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive an ordinary- or extraordinary-loss payment. In lieu of any of the foregoing cash payments, class members can submit a claim form to receive a $100 cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payout may be adjusted pro rata (i.e., equally) depending on the number of valid claims filed, among other factors. Finally, all class members can elect on their claim form to receive two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, which include dark web monitoring and identity theft insurance. To submit a MOVEit settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the claimant ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 8, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the MOVEit settlement final approval following a hearing on October 15, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. While the class action settlement resolved claims against both Ernst & Young and Bank of America, claims against Progress Software Corporation, the licensor of the MOVEit software, have not been resolved, and litigation will continue against Progress. The class action lawsuit alleged that sensitive personal information provided by Bank of America to Ernst & Young may have been compromised by a data breach impacting the MOVEit file transfer software between May 27 and May 31, 2023. Per court documents, private information that may have been impacted in the MOVEit breach included first and last names, addresses, dates of birth, financial account information, debit or credit card numbers, usernames, PINs, passwords, personal health information, Social Security numbers and other unique government-issued ID numbers. [GN] EXACT SCIENCES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Skiff Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN SKIFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXACT SCIENCES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00653 (W.D. Wis., July 20, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") -- together "PII/PHI" -- about its current and former employees. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, asserts the suit. Exact Sciences Corp., is focused on developing and commercializing a non-invasive molecular screening test for the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. The Company's test is a stool-based DNA test that identifies both pre-cancer and cancer by detecting genetic mutations in colorectal cancer cells. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Phillips, Esq. Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: aphillips@straussborrelli.com agunem@straussborrelli.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters' Bid to Certify Investor Class OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION & RETIREMENT SECURITY FUNDS, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., EDWARD B. MEYERCORD III, REMI THOMAS, CRISTINA TATE, KEVIN RHODES, NORMAN RICE, JONAS BROWN, Case No. 3:24-cv-05102-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certifying a class of investors defined as: "All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Extreme during the period from July 27, 2022, through Jan. 30, 2024, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of any Defendant who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer, director or control person of Extreme during the Class Period and their immediate families; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling or beneficial interest; (v) the subsidiaries and affiliates of Extreme; (vi) Extreme's employee retirement and benefit plan(s), if any, and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded person, in their capacities as such. The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association, and Oakland County Employees' Retirement System be appointed as Class Representatives, and orders that Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP shall serve as Class Counsel. A further case management conference is set for Sept. 10, 2026, at 02:00 PM in San Francisco - Videoconference Only. The Case Management Statement is due by Sept. 3, 2026. The ADR deadline is Sept.4, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements. Extreme is an American networking hardware and software company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=53rmzB at no extra charge.[CC] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Securities Class Suit Recertified, Appeal Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ FirstEnergy 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 28, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recertified plaintiffs' proposed securities class suit, and FE filed a petition in the Sixth Circuit to appeal that recertification order on May 14, 2026. In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio) involves putative class action lawsuits filed by purported stockholders of FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On July 28, 2020, and Aug. 21, 2020, stockholders filed these actions, which were later consolidated, and the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association was appointed as lead plaintiff by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 26, 2021, asserting claims on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between Feb. 21, 2017, and July 21, 2020, and alleging that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning its business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act due to alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order. On Aug. 13, 2025, the Sixth Circuit vacated the Southern District of Ohio's order granting class certification, and on Nov.r 6, 2025, the district court held oral argument to further consider class certification in light of the appellate decision. On April 30, 2026, the Southern District of Ohio issued an order recertifying plaintiffs' proposed class, and FE filed a petition in the Sixth Circuit to appeal that recertification order on May 14, 2026. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit, but, given the ongoing nature and complexity of the litigation, it cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur losses in connection with the resolution of these lawsuits. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. FirstEnergy Corp. is a publicly traded energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. It serves customers across multiple Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic states through its regulated utility subsidiaries. FIVE POINT: Agrees to $10.8M Settlement Over Bayview Testing Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Five Point Holdings, LLC 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 24, 2026, that in February 2026, the parties to a putative class action filed in May 2018 in San Francisco Superior Court by residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco entered into a settlement agreement. The agreement provides for $10.8 million in damages to be paid from insurance proceeds under a joint insurance policy held by the company and Lennar Corporation and for dismissal with prejudice of the claims against the company. Payment of the settlement and dismissal of the lawsuit are conditioned upon delivery of releases from approximately 6,500 plaintiffs in the Bayview case. The lawsuit named Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Lennar, and the company as defendants in connection with testing and remediation of toxic radiological waste at the San Francisco Shipyard. Plaintiffs allege that Tetra Tech, an independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy, fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts, and they seek damages from Tetra Tech and the company. In addition to monetary damages, the plaintiffs requested an injunction to prevent the company and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard. Five Point Holdings, LLC, is a real estate development company that plans and develops large, mixed-use, master-planned communities in coastal California. Its projects integrate residential, commercial, retail, educational and recreational uses in long-term, multi-phased developments. Lennar Corporation is one of the company's two largest equity owners. FOOTHILL CAPITAL: Benites Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foothill Capital Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Robin C. Benites, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Foothill Capital Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05689-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal., July 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Foothill Capital Solutions, LLC -- https://www.foothill-solutions.com/ -- is a third-party debt collection and account management service provider located in Chandler, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com FOREVER WINNING LLC: Worth Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forever Winning, LLC. The case is styled as Jason Earl Worth, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Forever Winning, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00486-BJB (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Forever Winning, LLC is an active business entity known for operating online social and sweepstakes casino platforms.[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 GAS SOUTH LLC: Irvin Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gas South, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Irvin, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Gas South, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04114-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 21, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gas South -- https://www.gassouth.com/ -- is a leading natural gas provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 6000 Lynmark Way, Suite 106 #1320 Fairburn, GA 30213 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com GDA CONSULTING: Appeals Arbitration Denial Order to 4th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- GDA CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Bradby, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dan Koetting, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00026-RCY, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act as well as claims for unjust enrichment and common law conspiracy arising from a tribal lending scheme. On Apr. 14, 2025, and Apr. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration, which Judge Roderick C. Young denied on June 18, 2026. The Court finds that the delegation clauses and arbitration provisions in the case are unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Therefore, the Defendants' motions are denied. The appellate case is styled as Jeffrey Bradby v. GDA Consulting Group, LLC, Case No. 26-1939, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JEFFREY BRADBY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Patrick Farley Dillard, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (804) 917-9804 (703) 424-7576 (703) 424-7572 (703) 424-7573 (703) 424-7571 (703) 434-3901 Defendants-Appellants GDA CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, et al. are represented by: Christina L. Hennecken, Esq. Andrew Kim, Esq. Matthew Sheldon, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 (202) 346-4165 (202) 346-4027 GOLDEN HEARTS: Worth Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Hearts Games, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Earl Worth, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Golden Hearts Games, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00487-RGJ (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Golden Hearts Games -- https://www.goldenheartsgames.com/ -- creates and offers casino-style promotional games where players win real cash and support their favorite charities.[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 GOOGLE LLC: Cameras Scan People's Faces Without Consent, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that two separate class action lawsuits were filed against Google LLC. Why: The plaintiffs claim Google's Nest cameras scan people's faces without consent. Where: The class action lawsuits were filed in California federal court. Two separate class action lawsuits were filed against Google, alleging its Nest security cameras and doorbells systematically collect, store and use the facial recognition data of people who never consented to having their faces scanned. The plaintiffs claim the "Familiar Face" detection feature offered by Google's Nest security cameras and doorbells uses artificial intelligence to scan the face of every person who appears in the camera's field of view, capturing an image and creating a mathematical template of their facial geometry. The complaint argues that while Google Nest camera owners activate the feature, bystanders whose faces are scanned cannot consent to the process. Plaintiff Alexis Fennessy and seven others, all Virginia residents, claim Google's "Familiar Face" feature scanned their faces without consent as they walked through neighborhoods where Nest devices were installed, despite never having purchased, registered or used any Google Nest product themselves. They claim violations of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act and a Virginia code barring the unauthorized use of a person's picture for purposes of trade. Meanwhile, plaintiff Barbara Trevino, a California resident, claims Google's devices captured her biometric data while she walked through her neighborhood for exercise. She alleges intrusion upon seclusion and violation of California's constitutional right to privacy. Fennessy seeks to represent a nationwide class and Virginia subclass of everyone whose data was collected without written consent, while Trevino seeks a similarly defined nationwide class and California subclass. Google allegedly disabled face scanning in Illinois The plaintiffs in both lawsuits argue Google knows it is acting unlawfully, as it has disabled the feature in Illinois, which has a specific biometric privacy statute allowing private citizens to sue for unconsented collection of facial recognition data. Despite regulatory actions in other states, Google continues to scan bystanders' faces without consent and without disclosure, according to the Google class action lawsuit. "In every other state, including states where regulators have taken enforcement actions against Google for this very conduct, Google has made the calculated decision to continue scanning bystanders' faces without consent and without disclosure," the Fennessey class action says. Fennessy further argues that the Texas attorney general reached a $1.375 billion settlement with Google in May 2025 over Nest cameras capturing Texans' biometric data without consent. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. In another class action lawsuit filed in December 2025, a consumer claims the tech giant failed to warn Google Drive subscribers that their stored files could be automatically deleted without warning. Fennessy, et al. are represented by M. Anderson Berry and Gregory Haroutunian of Emery Reddy P.C. and Israel David, Adam M. Harris and Mark A. Cianci of Israel David LLC. Trevino is represented by Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot, Theodore W. Maya and Lisa Cintron of Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C. The Google class action lawsuits are Fennessy, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-06534 and Trevino v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-06694, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Hearing on Judgment on Pleadings Continued to Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe I, et al., v. Google LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02431 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting the stipulated request to alter the briefing schedule and hearing date for the motion for judgment on the pleadings: -- The hearing on the motion is continued to Sept. 10, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion shall be filed on or before Aug. 7, 2026 -- Google shall file its reply in support of the motion on or before Aug. 27, 2026. However, the Court doesn't understand why this motion should cause the deadline to file a motion for class certification to be pushed back. If the Court ends up granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and if that affects the composition of the proposed class, that can be dealt with at the hearing on class certification. Accordingly, unless the Court is missing something, the plaintiffs should plan to press ahead with their motion for class certification as scheduled. The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage. Google is an American multinational technology corporation.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Pearson Files Suit Over Illegal Data-Sharing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- CORINNE PEARSON and MELENIE CRUTCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-07495 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2026) arises from a dangerous and unlawful data-sharing arrangement between Google and companies controlled by a foreign adversary of the United States. The Plaintiffs seek relief for Google's unlawful interception of Americans' communications and its bulk transmission of Americans' sensitive personal information to entities subject to the jurisdiction and influence of the Chinese Communist Party in violation of federal law and fundamental privacy rights. According to the complaint, Google knowingly and systematically transmits sensitive user data intercepted from U.S. websites to Baidu, a Chinese technology company that the Pentagon has formally identified as a "Chinese Military Company," and to Temu, a Chinese e-commerce platform with deep ties to the People's Republic of China, the Chinese government and ruling party, and widely reported links to its intelligence apparatus. In direct violation of the Bulk Sensitive Data Rule ("BSD Rule"), Google, through its automated advertising infrastructure, transmits U.S. user data to Baidu and Temu on websites where Google has established identity-synchronization integrations with those companies' servers. Baidu and Temu receive this data in real time as part of their participation in Google's advertising system. The Plaintiffs and Class members did not consent to Google's conduct, the complaint asserts. Plaintiffs Pearson's and Crutcher's sensitive and private information was unlawfully intercepted and then shared by Google with Baidu and Temu. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek statutory damages under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, as well as equitable relief, including an injunction barring Google from continuing to intercept user communications and from making unlawful data transfers to entities affiliated with foreign adversaries. Plaintiff Corinne Pearson visited the website rxlist.com. Plaintiff Melenie Crutcher also visited the website rxlist.com and webmd.com. Google's JavaScript code is deployed on both rxlist.com and webmd.com. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company, and a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Silverkorn, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.212.9300 Facsimile: 415.373.9435 E-mail: bsilverkorn@edelson.com GOOGLE LLC: Smith Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY L. SMITH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE, LLC., Case No. 5:23-cv-03527-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 19, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order granting their motion to certify the proposed classes, appoint plaintiffs Tiffany Layton, Jamila Armstrong, Joseph Sebastian Nino and Tracylyn Patterson ("Representative Plaintiffs") as class representatives, and appoint Lori G. Feldman of Hecht Partners LLP, and Neal Deckant of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following classes and subclasses: The Nationwide Eavesdropping Class and Subclasses (Cal. Penal Code sections 632 and 635): Class: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present, or completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiffs Layton, Armstrong, Nino and Patterson seek to be class representatives for this class. TaxAct Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present." The Plaintiffs Layton, Armstrong and Nino seek to be class representatives for this subclass. TaxSlayer Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiff Patterson seeks to be a class representative for this subclass. The Nationwide Wiretapping Classes and Subclasses (18 U.S.C. sections 2510, et seq and 18 U.S.C. section 2512): Class: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present, or completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the Present." The Plaintiffs Layton, Armstrong, Nino and Patterson seek to be class representatives for this class. TaxAct Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present." The Plaintiffs Layton, Armstrong and Nino seek to be class representatives for this subclass. TaxSlayer Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiff Patterson seeks to be a class representative for this subclass. The California Wiretapping Class and Subclass (Cal. Penal Code sections 631(a) and 635): Class: "All individuals in California who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present, or completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present.” The Plaintiff Nino seeks to be a class representative for this class. TaxAct Subclass: "All individuals in California who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present." The Plaintiff Nino seeks to be a class representative for this subclass. The Florida Wiretapping Class and Subclass (Florida Security of Communications Act, Florida Statutes section 934.10): Class: "All individuals in Florida who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present, or completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiff Patterson seeks to be a class representative for this class. TaxSlayer Subclass: "All individuals in Florida who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present. The Plaintiff Patterson seeks to be a class representative for this subclass. The Nationwide Pen Register Class and Subclasses (Cal. Penal Code section 638.51): Class: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present, or completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiffs Layton, Armstrong, Nino and Patterson seek to be class representatives for this class. TaxAct Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxAct website from Jan. 10, 2018, through the present." The Plaintiffs Layton, Armstrong and Nino seek to be class representatives for this subclass. TaxSlayer Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who completed the process of preparing their federal tax return on the TaxSlayer website from Feb. 1, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiff Patterson seeks to be a class representative for this subclass. Excluded from each of the Classes are the assigned Judge(s), the Plaintiffs' counsel, Google's counsel, the parties' retained experts, Google's officers and directors, members of their immediate families, any entity in which Google has or had a controlling interest, and the successors or assigns of any of the foregoing. Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xfnnWL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: lfeldman@hechtpartners.com mliskow@hechtpartners.com rpeterson@hechtpartners.com - and - Neal Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com - and - Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC 12333 Sowden Road, Suite B, PMB 51811 Houston, TX 77080 Telephone: (832) 848-0036 E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com - and - Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 Facsimile: (713) 513-5202 E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042-2754 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor, #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com GRAND CANYON: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tanner Smith, Qimin Wang, and Sabrina Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01410-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order (1) certifying the Proposed Class and Subclasses, and (2) appointing the Plaintiffs and their counsel as proposed in the Motion. GCE's Opposition relies on four declarations to suggest that prospective GCU doctoral students received curative oral disclosures about continuation-course costs: two from current GCE counselors (Lundine and Armstrong) and two from former GCU doctoral students (Drs. Siegel and Clay). GCE first disclosed these declarants—two of whom are proposed Class members that GCE's general counsel and outside counsel contacted directly and without notice to the Plaintiffs after class discovery had closed and the Plaintiffs had filed their motion to certify the proposed Class— with its Opposition. A curative disclosure would have had to convey what the Total Cost Representations omit: that almost all GCU doctoral graduates need continuation courses and that the cost figure presented excludes those courses. Grand Canyon is a publicly traded (NASDAQ:LOPE) education services company that partners with colleges and universities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HOEiUL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Peter C. Soldato, Esq. Joseph Frate, Esq. Chuck Dender, Esq. Mollie Weiss, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com psoldato@dicellolevitt.com jfrate@dicellolevitt.com cdender@dicellolevitt.com mweiss@dicellolevitt.com - and - Chris Bryant, Esq. Eric Rothschild, Esq. Madeline Wiseman, Esq. Laura Bart, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: chris@defendstudents.org eric@defendstudents.org madeline@defendstudents.org laura@defendstudents.org GUITAR CENTER: Agrees to Settle Wage and Hour Suit for $2.4MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Guitar Center Stores, Inc. has agreed to pay more than $2.4 million to resolve claims it violated California labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination and reimbursable expenses. The Guitar Center settlement benefits Guitar Center employees who worked for the company between Jan. 11, 2020, and July 11, 2025. The settlement also benefits Guitar Center employees who worked for the company between Jan. 11, 2022, and July 11, 2025, under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). According to the class action lawsuit, Guitar Center committed California wage and hour violations by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination and reimbursable expenses. The company also allegedly failed to provide meal periods, rest breaks and accurate itemized wage statements. Guitar Center is a musical instrument retailer with locations across the country. Guitar Center has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2,418,495 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Guitar Center settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period. Exact payment amounts will vary. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 1, 2026. The final approval hearing for the wage and hour violations class action settlement is scheduled for Oct. 2, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a class action settlement payment. Class members who wish to dispute the number of workweeks and pay periods used to calculate their settlement payment must submit a challenge by Sept. 1, 2026. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits non-exempt Guitar Center employees who worked for the company between Jan. 11, 2020, and July 11, 2025. The PAGA portion of the settlement benefits non-exempt Guitar Center employees who worked for the company between Jan. 11, 2022, and July 11, 2025. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase No proof is required, but employees can submit a challenge to their estimated workweeks or pay periods by sending a letter to the settlement administrator, along with copies of pay stubs or other records. Claim Form Deadline 09/01/2026 Case Name Case No. 23STCV00544, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California Final Hearing 10/02/2026 Settlement Website CAEmployeeSettlementGuitarCenter.com Claims Administrator Atticus Administration P.O. Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 CAEmployeeSettlementGuitarCenter@AtticusAdmin.com (800) 470-0690 Class Counsel Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kristy Connolly, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM P.C. Defense Counsel Andrea F. Oxman Leticia Kimble Elise G. Dvorochkin JACKSON LEWIS P.C. [GN] H2O AMERICA: CWC Continues to Defend Water Contamination Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- H2O America 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 28, 2026, that the Company's subsidiary, Connecticut Water Company (CWC), continues to defend itself from water contamination class suit in the State of Connecticut Superior Court. In October 2023, CWC, a subsidiary of H2O America, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the water it provided contained contaminants. The case was filed in the State of Connecticut Superior Court and remains pending. The lawsuit seeks to represent a putative class of individuals who allegedly consumed or were otherwise exposed to the water supplied by CWC. The action asserts that contaminants were present in the water provided by CWC, and it challenges the safety and quality of that water supply. It alleges that affected individuals may have suffered harm or been placed at risk due to these contaminants. CWC has responded to the allegations and is vigorously defending itself in the lawsuit. The proceeding is currently in the litigation phase before the State of Connecticut Superior Court. No final judgment, settlement, or dismissal has been reported to date. The ultimate outcome of this putative class action, and any potential financial or operational impact on CWC or H2O America, remains uncertain at this time. H2O America is a regulated water utility holding company whose subsidiaries provide water and related services to residential, commercial, and institutional customers. It focuses on operating, maintaining, and improving public water supply systems across its service territories in the United States. Connecticut Water Company (CWC) is a regulated utility that supplies water to residential, commercial, and industrial customers throughout Connecticut. It is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of H2O America, a publicly traded holding company that owns regulated water and wastewater utilities serving communities in California, Connecticut, Maine, and Texas. HCA INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Fox Suit Due Jan. 11, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ANN FOX, individually, and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the HCA 401(k) Plan, v. HCA INC., UNDER 29 U.S.C. section1132(a)(2) and THE HCA 401(K) PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00178 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the motion for an expedited status conference and to modify the case management order. The Initial Case Management Conference deadlines are modified below: Expert disclosures: Oct. 12, 2026 Fact discovery to close: Nov. 6, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Jan. 11, 2027 Certification: The Defendants response to the Feb. 23, 2027 Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support March 9, 2027 of class certification: HCA provides healthcare services through hospitals and ambulatory care facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWYc43 at no extra charge.[CC] HDR GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Bitcoin Theft, Insider Trading ------------------------------------------------------------------ Francisco Rodrigues, writing for CoinDesk, reports that BitMEX, the crypto derivatives exchange that invented the perpetual swap, faces a proposed class action suit alleging theft of bitcoin and insider trading filed the same day it said it would shut down in three months. The lawsuit, filed by former tokenization project BKX Services and David Namdar in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sees BKX claim it lost at least 305.81 BTC through forced liquidations, while Namdar alleges losses of more than 316.85 BTC -- a total of 622.66 BTC ($40.7 million). The July 23 filing came as BitMEX said it would close on Sept. 23, ending an 11-year run. Similar claims were made in a 2020 class-action case, which was closed in June 2025 without a ruling on the liquidation allegations. The new complaint alleges BitMEX and co-founders Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo and Samuel Reed designed a system to retain customers' collateral and transfer the remaining bitcoin to the platform's insurance fund. It also says an internal trading desk had access to private customer information and could continue trading during server freezes that prevented other users from closing their positions. BitMEX allowed traders to borrow up to 100 times their collateral to leverage their positions. The plaintiffs allege the platform liquidated their positions while the collateral was still worth roughly twice the losses and withheld the balance. It names parent company HDR Global Trading, several affiliates and the co-founders as respondents. The plaintiffs want to represent U.S. customers who bought BitMEX bitcoin swap products from July 23, 2018. They are seeking the return of the bitcoin, compensatory damages and punitive damages. It requires a judge to rule that it can proceed as a class-action suit. The exchange's closure followed a strategic review by HDR and a wider management shake-up. BitMEX lost its CEO, chief financial officer and head of growth last month, with general counsel Peter Wilkinson taking over as CEO. CoinDesk reached out to BitMEX and other defendants for comment, but had not heard back by publication time. [GN] HEALTH CARE FACILITY: Settlement in Villarin Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANE ROSE VILLARIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE FACILITY MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a COMMUNICARE FAMILY OF COMPANIES, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00097-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order granting final settlement approval under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 judgment of dismissal with prejudice. -- Th Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over the Parties, including all members of the following Settlement Class certified (for settlement purposes only) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in this Court's Preliminary Approval Order: "All foreign-trained registered nurses sponsored by CommuniCare through the immigration process from Feb. 17, 2013 through Oct. 13, 2025." The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement Class: Jedkreisky Malabanan, Sherra May Vega, Mary Jhane Engnan, Jeddalyn Ramos, Jeffrey Banayat, and Arman Candelaria. -- The Court approves Class Counsel's application for $338,100 in attorneys' fees and out-of-pocket litigation expenses, $15,000 as a Service Award to Plaintiff Ariane Rose Villarin, and $12,000 to the Settlement Administrator. -- The Court dismisses this Action and all claims with prejudice, without costs to any party, except as expressly provided for in the Settlement Agreement. -- The Court orders that this Final Approval Order shall constitute a final Judgment that is binding on the Parties and the Settlement Class. Health care provides administrative, HR, IT, and payroll support services to medical and nursing facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fLXYHa at no extra charge.[CC] HOPE BAKING COMPANY: Estrada Files WARN Act Suit in W.D. Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hope Baking Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Christopher Estrada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hope Baking Company, Inc., East Baking Company, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01921 (W.D. Ark., July 21, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Hope Baking Company, Inc. is a Long Island City bakery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Coe, Esq. FOGLEMAN ROGERS COE P.O. Box 1666 West Memphis, AR 72303 Phone: (870) 735-1900 Fax: (870) 735-1662 Email: matthewcoe@westmemphisattorney.com HR-REVOLUTION LLC: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Background Report --------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for HRD, reports that a job applicant says an inaccurate background report cost her a new job -- now the screening company faces a class action. The lawsuit was filed July 22, 2026 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against HR-Revolution LLC, a company that produces background reports for employers. The applicant, a North Carolina resident, is suing on behalf of herself and others in a similar position under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA - the federal law that sets the rules for how consumer and background information is collected and shared. For HR teams, the case is a reminder of how much weight a single vendor report can carry in a hiring decision, and how the fallout lands on both the candidate and the employer when a report is alleged to be wrong. Here is what the complaint alleges. On April 7, 2026, the applicant applied for a job at a North Carolina health and rehabilitation facility and, after a series of interviews, received an offer. According to the filing, the employer ordered her background report from HR-Revolution on April 10, 2026, and the company delivered it on April 14. That same day, the complaint says, she was told in front of her orientation class that she needed to leave the facility. When she tried to contest the decision, the complaint says she was told the report would only go back seven years, but that the report went back further than that. The filing claims the report was inaccurate and misleading. It alleges the report listed the same criminal charges more than once -- repeating one case twice and another case twice -- and presented a single matter that had been merged and resolved as two separate cases. The complaint says this "erroneously exaggerates" the applicant's "limited criminal history." The suit also alleges the report left out information a hiring employer would want. According to the filing, it failed to note that her probation had ended early and did not properly report that certain charges had been dismissed. On the notice side, the complaint alleges HR-Revolution did not tell the applicant, at the time it happened, that public-record information was being sent to the employer, which it says left her no chance to explain or correct the information before the offer was withdrawn. The filing characterizes the company's conduct as "conduct analogous to defamation per se," arguing the report falsely imputed recent criminal conduct to her and harmed her reputation and her ability to find work. These are allegations, and the standard has not been established in court. The matter is brought as a class action. The complaint alleges HR-Revolution produced more than 5,000 employment background reports over two years and estimates at least 1,000 people could fall within the proposed classes. It seeks statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 for each alleged violation, plus punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. For HR and recruitment leaders, the thread worth watching is vendor accountability. Background screeners sit inside the hiring pipeline, and the FCRA places specific duties on them around accuracy, completeness, and timely notice to the candidate. The case is a prompt to review how third-party reports are ordered, checked, and acted on before an offer is withdrawn. The allegations have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on the claims. [GN] HUDSON VALLEY MEDICAL: Traver Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hudson Valley Medical Billing & Credentialing LLC. The case is styled as Michele Traver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hudson Valley Medical Billing & Credentialing LLC, Case No. 2026-54033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Commercial (Data Breach). Hudson Valley Medical Billing & Credentialing LLC is a professional services firm based in Wappingers Falls, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Francis Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com HUNGRYPANDA US: Faces Dai's Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- JIEWEI DAI, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUNGRYPANDA US INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22704 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The suit alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, and engagement in unfair competition. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a driver since 2022 and has been classified as an independent contractor during his entire employment with them. HngrypandaUS Inc. provides food delivery services to clients.[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 ICONOCLAST CONTENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rumenapp Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH RUMENAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ICONOCLAST CONTENT, INC.; NIKE USA, INC.; WIEDEN + KENNEDY, INC.; CHARLES-MARIE ANTHONIOZ; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-07945 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 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 Rumenapp was employed by the Defendants as a production assistant. Iconoclast Content, Inc. is an international, award-winning creative production company founded in Paris and Los Angeles. It specializes in making feature films, television shows, high-end commercials, music videos, and print campaigns. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com IHG MANAGEMENT: Garcia Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IHG MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC d/b/a INTERCONTINENTAL LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN, a Maryland limited liability company; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22693 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay all earned wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit lawful rest periods; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages owed at separation; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; and unfair competition. Plaintiff Garcia was employed in an hourly capacity in the non-exempt position of Seasonal Pool Server by the Defendants from May 2025 to August 2025. IHG Management (Maryland) LLC is a corporate subsidiary and operating entity used by InterContinental Hotels Group to manage, oversee, and operate hotel properties and related hospitality services across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Vikram J. Kapoor, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com vik@jameshawkinsaplc.com IMA DILIGENCE SERVICES: Clawson Suit Removed to D. Kansas --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexander Clawson and Christina Zahid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMA DILIGENCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. JO-2026-CV-001658 was removed from the 10th Judicial District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02425. This matter arises from an alleged incident where Defendant suffered an alleged data breach that allegedly exposed Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Charles E. Branson, Esq. Daniel C. Sloan, Esq. FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER & SMITH, LLP 3550 SW 5th Street Topeka, KS 66606 Phone: (785) 232-7761 Fax: (785) 232-6604 Email: cbranson@fpsslaw.com dsloan@fpsslaw.com - and - Christopher J. Seusing, Esq. Timothy D. Shea, Esq. WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 18th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 999-7100 Email: cseusing@wshblaw.com tshea@wshblaw.com INTEGER HOLDINGS: Pembroke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEMBROKE PINES PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Integer Holdings Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10251, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought 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 by materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's electrophysiology (EP) market in order to trade Integer common stock at artificially inflated prices between July 25, 2024 and October 22, 2025. On Apr. 10, 2026, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 1, 2026. On June 22, 2026, Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The appellate case is styled as Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers v. Integer Holdings Corporation, Case No. 26-2000, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PEMBROKE PINES PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS, on behalf of itself and all similarly situated, is represented by: Steven Bennett Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 10 Bank St., 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Defendants-Appellees INTEGER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Edmund Polubinski, III, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: Wickersham Balks at Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN WICKERSHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. iRHYTHM HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-06095-ASK (N.D. Cal., June 18, 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 who were impacted in a data breach. On June 8, 2026, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity in its network. Upon detection, the Defendant engaged external cybersecurity professionals to assist in an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. 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. The 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. 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; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. She seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. iRhythm Holdings, Inc. is a digital healthcare company that provides cardiac monitoring technologies and services, including its Zio(R) electrocardiogram monitors and related data analysis solutions used by healthcare providers and patients. The Company is headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2513 Telephone: (213) 805-8373 E-mail: jingber@zlk.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 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com JERSEY CENTRAL: Securities Class Suit Recertified; Appeal Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Jersey Central Power & Light 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 28, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District Ohio recertified plaintiffs' securities class suit. In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio) involves putative class action lawsuits filed by purported stockholders of FE alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On July 28, 2020, and Aug. 21, 2020, these stockholders filed putative class actions that were later consolidated, and the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association was appointed as lead plaintiff by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 26, 2021, asserting claims on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between Feb. 21, 2017, and July 21, 2020. The consolidated complaint alleges that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. It also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order. On Aug. 13, 2025, the Sixth Circuit vacated the S.D. Ohio's order granting class certification. On Nov. 6, 2025, the S.D. Ohio held an oral argument to further consider class certification in light of the Sixth Circuit's decision. On April 30, 2026, the S.D. Ohio issued an order recertifying plaintiffs' proposed class. FE filed a petition in the Sixth Circuit to appeal that order on May 14, 2026. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, it cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. In addition, two related actions styled MFS Series Trust I, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., and Brighthouse Funds II - MFS Value Portfolio, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., are pending in the Southern District of Ohio. On Dec. 17, 2021, and Feb. 21, 2022, purported stockholders of FE filed complaints against FE, certain current and former FE officers, and certain then-current and former officers of Energy Harbor Corp. These complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making alleged misrepresentations or omissions regarding FE's business and its results of operations. The plaintiffs in these matters seek the same relief as in In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur losses in connection with the resolution of these additional lawsuits. However, given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss associated with these actions. Jersey Central Power & Light Co. is an electric utility company serving retail and wholesale customers in New Jersey. It operates as a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., providing electricity distribution and related energy services across its service territory. JEWISH VOICE: Court Dismisses Faoro Class Action ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FAORO, v. JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, INC. dba OCCUPATION FREE DC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00289-ABJ (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered an order granting motions to dismiss Faoro case. Given the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, appoint lead counsel, and appoint lead plaintiff is denied as moot. The Plaintiff also filed a notice of supplemental authority, which the defendants Party for Socialism and Liberation and Becker moved to strike. The supplemental "authority" appears to be briefs filed in connection with the appeal of the decision in Manhart v. WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-8209 (N.D. Ill.), a case that was brought to the Court's attention by defendants WESPAC, Party of Socialism and Liberation, and Becker. The Court agrees with the defendants that while a decision overturning the district court would constitute supplemental authority, lawyers' arguments – especially arguments advanced by a lawyer in this case -- as to why it should be overturned do not. However, since the Court did not rely on the Illinois court's decision in Manhart in determining either the jurisdictional questions or the merits of plaintiff’s claims under D.C. law, and since the claims against WESPAC, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Becker are dismissed, the motion to strike is denied as moot. The Defendants Maryland2Palestine, Harriets Wildest Dreams, and Dornethia Taylor have been served, but have yet to respond to the complaint. It is ordered that they respond to the complaint by July 24, 2026. The Court will issue a separate order as to defendant Shraim's counsel and the use of artificial intelligence. The Plaintiff alleges that on Feb. 1, 2024, the defendants conspired to block traffic on multiple public roads and bridges into the District of Columbia "to show support for Palestine in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine." As one of the drivers stuck in the ensuing traffic jam, he seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on claims of public nuisance, false imprisonment, and negligence, and he seeks to certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all those similarly situated. Jewish is an American Jewish anti-Zionist and left-wing advocacy organization. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BOsJD1 at no extra charge.[CC] JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Cervantes Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Iris Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00135-JLT-FJS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Merced, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and California's Public Policy. On Feb. 6, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to State Court. On Feb. 12, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. On July 9, 2026, Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Court finds that JPMorgan has not carried its burden to support its jurisdictional allegations about the amount in controversy with relevant evidence and reasonable assumptions. The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion to compel arbitration, so that motion is denied. This action is remanded to the Merced County Superior Court. The appellate case is styled as Cervantes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, Case No. 26-4636, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 27, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 31, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee IRIS CERVANTES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Ruchira Mukherjee, Esq. Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW, LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Defendant-Appellant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Alexander Grodan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 KDB DELIVERY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Steiner Due May 28, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Steiner, v. KDB Delivery LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01552-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanza entered an order -- The deadline for completion of fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena and all disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(3), shall be May 28, 2027. -- The party with the burden of proof on an issue shall provide full and complete expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than Feb. 11, 2027. -- Expert depositions shall be completed no later than May 28, 2027. -- Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 28, 2027. -- Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 60 days from the ruling on the anticipated motion for class certification or, if no motion for class certification is filed, June 11, 2027. The Defendant focuses on logistics and delivery operations. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yV0nyF at no extra charge.[CC] LANCASTER AFH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Salim Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ABDULLAHI SALIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANCASTER AFH, LLC; PREFERRED CARE, LLC; and MARYAN SALIM, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00654 (W.D. Wis., July 20, 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 Salim was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver. Lancaster AFH, LLC is a healthcare organization with a specialty of in home supportive care agency. [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) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 LANDSCAPES BY JEFFCO: Araujo Seeks to Recover Regular and OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ARAUJO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANDSCAPES BY JEFFCO, INC. and JEFFREY COLON, Defendants, Case No. Case 2:26-cv-04502 (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2026) is a collective action complaint aiming to recover regular and overtime compensation arising from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly-situated who worked for more than 40 hours in a week were not properly compensated for the Defendants' publicly financed projects. Plaintiff Araujo was employed by Defendants as a laborer and landscaper from on or about April 25, 2005 to on or about December 14, 2025. Defendant Jeffco provides landscaping, yard maintenance, and gardening services to commercial and residential properties within New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com LEPRINO FOODS: Court OK's $283K Gross Settlement Amount ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order as follows: 1. As the parties have consented to the undersigned presiding over this case, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the June 4, 2026, findings and recommendations as no longer pending. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted in part. 3. The following settlement class is certified: "All non-exempt employees of Leprino Foods Company who performed work in California from Oct. 17, 2023, through Feb. 24, 2024." 4. The Court approves a $283,976.00 gross settlement amount. 5. The Plaintiff Christopher Dominguez is approved as the class representative for the settlement class and shall receive a $7,500 class representative service payment. 6. Kristen Agnew, Larry Lee, Max Gavron, and Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan of Diversity Law Group, P.C. are approved as class counsel for the settlement class and the Court approves an award of $94,658.66 7. The Court approves an award of $23,789.43 in costs. 8. The Court approves Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the settlement administrator and payment of $11,995.000 to it as costs. Leprino is an American company that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E33Rg6 at no extra charge.[CC] LIFE INSURANCE: Krimbow's Bid for Class Cert. Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoffman et al., v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 5:23-cv-04068-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order that: -- Krimbow's motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part; -- The parties' consolidated sealing motion is denied; and -- The remaining sealing motions filed in connection with the class-certification briefing are denied as moot. Accordingly, as to proposed class members who purchased the GLIR, Krimbow has established that she satisfies all the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court certifies the following class: "All public employees of all California local school districts, community college districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the California State University System, eligible to participate in an annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who, in the period between June 26, 2019 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, were invested in an indexed annuity 403(b) product issued by Defendant and who paid fees for the Guaranteed Life Income Rider (or "Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawal Benefit Rider") that were not disclosed on 403bcompare.com." The plaintiff Danielle Krimbow alleges that the Defendant charged fees for certain add-on benefits to deferred indexed annuity plans that it offered to California public-school employees without disclosing such fees on 403bCompare.com as required by California Education Code section 25101(a)(3). Life specializes in annuity and life insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vc9Rah at no extra charge.[CC] LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Ney Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicole Ney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc. d/b/a Brown Health Medical Group-MA, Saint Anne's Hospital Medical Staff, Inc, Case No. 2673CV00621 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc. doing business as Brown Health Medical Group -- https://www.brownhealth.org/ -- is a leading healthcare provider dedicated to delivering high-quality medical services to the community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 260 Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Pimentel Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ana Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc. d/b/a Brown Health Medical Group-MA, Saint Anne's Hospital Medical Staff, Inc, Case No. 2673CV00622 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc. doing business as Brown Health Medical Group -- https://www.brownhealth.org/ -- is a leading healthcare provider dedicated to delivering high-quality medical services to the community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 260 Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Whelan Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Frederick Whelan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifespan Physicians Group of Massachusetts, Inc D/B/A Brown Health Medical Group, Case No. 2673CV00630 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., July 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts." Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc. doing business as Brown Health Medical Group -- https://www.brownhealth.org/ -- is a leading healthcare provider dedicated to delivering high-quality medical services to the community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 260 Peachtree St. NW, Ste. 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com LOUISIANA: Frankovich Personal Injury Suit Removed to D. La. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action styled as Anthony Frankovich, et al. v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, et al., Case No. 70-00607, was removed from the Louisiana 25th Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, to the United District Court for the District of Louisiana on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01315-ILRL-KWR. The suit is brought by the Plaintiffs over Defendants' personal injury claims. The case is assigned to Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development manages state roadways, public transit, bridges, and aviation in the state of Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan B. Andry, Sr., Esq ANDRY LAW, LLC 1 Galleria Blvd., Suite 1502 New Orleans, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 952-0780 Facsimile: (504) 910-1480 E-mail: jandry@andrylawgroup.com - and - Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC 5301 Canal Boulevard, Suite A New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (985) 783-6789 E-mail: alemmon@brysonpllc.com - and - Leo J. Palazzo, Esq. PALAZZO LAW FIRM 732 Behrman Hwy., Suite F Gretna, LA 70056 Telephone: (504) 433-1442 Facsimile: (504) 433-9111 E-mail: leo@palazzolaw.com LOWE'S HOME: Court Stays Case Deadlines Pending Mediation --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHRYN GARNER, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTER LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00475-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered an order granting motion to stay pending mediation. All upcoming case deadlines in the Court's prior order are stayed until Oct. 19, 2026. Should the case reach a settlement, the parties must notify the Court in accordance with the Court's Standing Order for All Civil Cases. Otherwise, by Oct. 19, 2026, the parties must file a joint status report apprising the Court of the outcome of mediation and, if necessary, proposing deadlines for the class certification motion. A stay is appropriate here because a three-month pause in proceedings so the parties can pursue mediation will not cause any damage, nor any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice; indeed, if the parties are able to resolve this matter through mediation, it will result in significant savings of the parties' and the Court's resources, the Court says. Lowe's retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=80lC6h at no extra charge.[CC] LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER UPPERCO, et al., v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01283-JRK (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying their claims against the Defendants pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and members of the proposed Class. In support of their Motion, the Plaintiffs separately file the Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their motion for class certification and related exhibits. As detailed in the Plaintiffs' Memorandum, they move this Court for the entry of an Order certifying that this action may be maintained and proceed as a class action against defendants and for appointment of Heidi Burakiewicz of Burakiewicz & DePriest, PLCC, as Counsel for the Class; and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Lucas County is a county located in the northwestern part of the U.S. state of Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0YEU06 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq. BURAKIEWICZ & DEPRIEST, PLLC 1015 15th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 856-7500 E-mail: hburakiewicz@bdlawdc.com - and - Nancy Grim, Esq. NANCY GRIM, LLC Kent, OH 44240-0002 Telephone: (330) 678-6595 Facsimile: (844) 270-7608 E-mail: nancy.grim@nancygrimlaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Dennis A. Lyle, Esq. Elaine B. Szuch, Esq. LUCAS COUNTY 711 Adams Street Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 213-2001 Facsimile: (419) 213-2011 E-mail: dalyle@co.lucas.oh.us eszuch@co.lucas.oh.us - and - Rebecca E. Shope, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 1000 Jackson Street Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 241-9000 Facsimile: (419) 241-6894 E-mail: rshope@shumaker.com MAERSK INC: Plaintiffs May File Leave to Amend Complaint by Sept. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THURUPARAN MANOHARAN et al., v. MAERSK INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12422-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Sorokin entered an order that: -- The motions to strike (Doc. Nos. 49, 51, 53, 69, 71) are denied, and -- The motions to dismiss (Doc. No. 33, 36, 41) are denied in part and otherwise allowed. The Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to amend on or before Sept. 4, 2026. The motion, if made, shall include the Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint. If the proposed amended complaint seeks to add new defendants, the Plaintiffs shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 15.1. By the same deadline, the parties (along with any newly proposed parties) shall file a joint status report stating their joint or separate positions for a briefing schedule governing the motion for leave to amend. The Court anticipates that any defendants named in the proposed amended complaint will advance their Rule 12 objections to the proposed amended complaint in their opposition to the motion for leave to amend. The Court says that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly state a claim for relief against any defendant, and the complaint must be dismissed. The motions to dismiss are thus allowed to this extent. The Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of the Plan and of a class of Plan participants and beneficiaries defined as follows: "All participants in the Maersk Inc. Savings Plan during the Class Period, along with their beneficiaries and alternate payees of record, excluding the officers and directors of Maersk Inc. and Maersk Agency USA Inc., the members of the Maersk Inc. Pension Committee, and any participant or beneficiary with fiduciary responsibility for the Plan's investments." This putative class action arises from the inclusion of a certain stable-value fund in the retirement plan offered by the defendant Maersk Inc. The Plaintiffs allege that the fund consistently underperformed comparable alternatives and that the Plan's investment in the fund was an impermissible party-in-interest transaction. They claim that by offering and maintaining the product, the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Maersk is a global transport and logistics company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jiepaP at no extra charge.[CC] MARCUS CORPORATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Morris Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY MORRIS, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE MARCUS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-00783-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order denying Marcus' motion to dismiss and/or strike as to Morris' class allegations and granting as to Morris' claim for declaratory relief. The clerk is directed to schedule a telephone status conference to address further proceedings. The court has already declined to address class certification at this early stage of the case. Even if Marcus is correct that the class definition is improper as currently written, now is not the time to address it. The court may consider such arguments if and when Morris moves to certify the class upon a more developed record. Accordingly, the court will deny Marcus' motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations. Morris' complaint includes requests for both declaratory and injunctive relief for the same alleged injury. A claim for declaratory relief under such circumstances is redundant and duplicative of the claim for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the claim for declaratory relief will be dismissed. Morris brings class action allegations on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated meeting the following class definition: "All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access the Defendant's Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services, during the relevant statutory period." The Plaintiff Morris brought this class action against the Defendant, alleging Marcus' website was inaccessible to visually impaired individuals and therefore violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Defendant is an American publicly traded company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=skSnp3 at no extra charge.[CC] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Appeals Class Certification Order --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-03308-RMR-KAS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The suit, which was removed from the District Court for the State of Colorado, Pitkin County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, and the Colorado Human Trafficking Statute. On Apr. 11, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On Jan. 7, 2026, Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella entered a Report and Recommendations to grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. It is recommended that the Court certify the following class for the Plaintiff's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim: All J-1 visa trainees or interns who were employed by the Defendant at the St. Regis Aspen Resort from September 2016 until final judgment, and that the Court deny certification for the same class for the Plaintiff's state and federal human trafficking claims. On Jan. 21, 2026, Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed their objections to Judge Starnella's Report and Recommendations. On Mar. 23, 2026, Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Defendant's objection to the Recommendation is sustained. The Plaintiff's objection to the Recommendation is overruled. Judge Starnella's Recommendation is overruled. The appellate case is styled as Lopez v. Marriott International, Case No. 26-1291, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on July 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Alexander Hood, Esq. Brianne Michelle Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 North Logan Street, Suite 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 239-2606 (319) 239-3840 Defendant-Appellee MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. is represented by: Ellen E. Dew, Esq. Michael P. O'Day, Esq. William Wesley Reichart, Esq. DLA PIPER 650 South Exeter Street, Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 580-4293 MAXIMUS EDUCATION: $3MM Settlement Final Court Hearing Set Oct. 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Aidvantage has agreed to a $3 million class action settlement to resolve claims it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling consumers with unsolicited robocalls. The Aidvantage settlement benefits consumers who received a call from Aidvantage that used an artificial or prerecorded voice between Feb. 12, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2025, despite not being assigned to a current or former Aidvantage customer or account holder. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Aidvantage violated the TCPA by calling consumers with unsolicited robocalls. These calls allegedly used an artificial or prerecorded voice and were placed without the recipients' consent. Aidvantage is a student loan servicer and subsidiary of the government contractor Maximus Education LLC used to service and manage active federal student loans for the U.S. Department of Education. The company has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3 million class action settlement to resolve these TCPA violations. Under the terms of the Aidvantage settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive between $500 and $1,000. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 24, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Aidvantage settlement is scheduled for Oct. 7, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 24, 2026. Who's Eligible The Aidvantage settlement benefits consumers who received a call from Aidvantage that used an artificial or prerecorded voice between Feb. 12, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2025, despite not being assigned to a current or former Aidvantage customer or account holder. Potential Award Between $500 and $1,000 Proof of Purchase Proof of receipt, such as telephone records, of an artificial or prerecorded voice call or message from Aidvantage between Feb. 12, 2021, and Sept. 26, 2025. 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 08/24/2026 Case Name Knox v. Maximus Education LLC d/b/a Aidvantage, Case No. 2:25-cv-00121, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Final Hearing 10/07/2026 Settlement Website AidvantageTCPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Knox v. Maximus Education LLC d/b/a Aidvantage Settlement Administrator c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 930-0570 Class Counsel Aaron D. Radbil GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC Defense Counsel Ryan DiClemente Matthew Knepper HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP [GN] MCEWEN AND ASSOCIATES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the McEwen and 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 McEwen and Associates data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. McEwen and Associates Security Incident: What Happened? Texas-based healthcare operations company McEwen and Associates has reported a June 2025 data breach potentially involving sensitive patient information. According to a notice posted on its website, McEwen detected on June 24, 2025 a potential incident involving unauthorized access to certain systems containing patient information. After an investigation, the company determined that an unknown actor accessed its systems and copied certain information between June 23 and June 24, 2025. Following a review of the affected data and assessment of which individuals were impacted, McEwen recently concluded that the breach may have exposed names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account information, government-issued identification, treatment and diagnosis information, patient account number, medical record number, provider information, claims or medical billing information, and health insurance information. The degree of impacted information varies per individual. The McEwen and Associates data breach was also reported to the Texas Attorney General's Office on July 23, 2026. What You Can Do After the McEwen and Associates Data Breach If your information was exposed in the McEwen and 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 McEwen and 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] MCLANE COMPANY INC: Stott Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Stott and Lisi Umi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-08402-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05822. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts that they and the putative class they seek to represent are current or former non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of Defendant who work, or worked, at any location in the State of Washington. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts four causes of action: failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Washington Minimum Wage Act (WMWA) RCW 49.46; failure to pay overtime wages; and failure to provide all owed paid sick leave in violation of RCW 49.46.210.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Pizl, Esq. Daniel J. Teimouri, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 39th Avenue Southwest, Suite 13 Puyallup, WA 98373 Phone: (253) 446-7668 Email: bailey@entelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Phillip H. Wang, Esq. Cornelia Brandfield-Harvey, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 332-1114 Email: pwang@bakerlaw.com cbrandfieldharvey@bakerlaw.com - and - Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com MDL 3181: Faces Rapp Suit Over Defective Spinal Cord Stimulators ---------------------------------------------------------------- Windi P. Rapp v. Boston Scientific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-08148 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is a class action suit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients for injuries sustained as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's defective Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator ("SCS") system and Defendant's negligent and intentional conduct. Boston Scientific's SCS systems, including the WaveWriter Alpha 16 IPG Kit (the "Boston Scientific SCS Product" or "SCS Device"), are Class III medical devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") under Premarket Approval Application No. P030017. The Boston Scientific SCS Products are chronically and dangerously defective. Specifically, the electrical leads and implantable pulse generators ("IPGs") integral to these devices have an unacceptably high rate of failure, including but not limited to lead fracture, insulation breach, lead migration, and IPG/battery malfunction -- resulting in permanent neurological injury, including nerve damage, to implanted patients. Making matters worse, Boston Scientific deployed sales representatives to actively participate in the programming and reprogramming of implanted devices in a manner that exceeded the permissible scope of sales representatives under FDA regulations and Florida law, thereby constituting the unauthorized practice of medicine. These representatives also made false and misleading representations to induce patients to undergo implantation and to discourage patients from seeking removal when complications arose, thereby prolonging patients' exposure to the defective devices and worsening permanent nerve damage, alleges the suit. The case is consolidated in re: Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3181). Boston Scientific designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed the SCS products at issue, and conducted business throughout the United States, including within the Middle District of Florida, by marketing, selling, and distributing its SCS devices to physicians, hospitals, and patients, and by deploying sales and clinical representatives in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carasusana B. Wall, Esq. Ameena Alauddin, Esq. BULLOCK LEGAL GROUP, LLC One SeaGate, 550 N Summit St #710 Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (833) 853-4258 Facsimile: (470) 412-6708 E-mail: cara@bullocklegalgroup.com ameena@bullocklegalgroup.com efilings@bullocklegalgroup.com META PLATFORMS: Martinez Suit Removed to D. New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Wanda Martinez and Angel Salcido, Personal Representative on behalf of the Estate of Cristal Cervantes, and those similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, Inc., f/k/a Facebook, Inc., a corporation, INSTAGRAM, LLC, a corporation, META PAYMENTS, INC., a corporation, META PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a corporation, MARK ZUCKERBERG, an individual, and ALEJANDRO ALIREZ, an individual, Case No. D-412-CV-2026-00237 was removed from the Fourth Judicial District Court, San Miguel County, State of New Mexico, to the United States District Court for District of New Mexico on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02369. The Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages; damages for wrongful death and survival; exemplary, treble, and punitive damages; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief for alleged harm suffered. The Complaint brings claims for strict products liability, negligence, negligent failure to warn, consumer protection and unfair trade practice statutes, concealment and misrepresentation, negligence per se, wrongful death, survival, and loss of consortium.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John C. Anderson, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 215 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 100 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Phone: (505) 988-4421 Email: jcanderson@hollandhart.com - and - Christopher Y. L. Yeung, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 841-1262 Email: cyeung@cov.com MICHAELS COMPANIES: Crow Suit Removed to E.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cameron Crow, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Michaels Companies, Inc. doing business as: Michaels, Case No. 26-00002-01916-39 was removed from the Yakima County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on July 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03142 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Michaels Companies, Inc. doing business as Michaels -- https://www.michaels.com/ -- is an American retail holding company, headquartered in Irving, Texas.[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew DeCarlow, Esq. Damon Clay Elder, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Fax: (206) 274-6401 Email: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com damon.elder@morganlewis.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Ploss Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Mondelez International, 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Ploss consolidated class suit in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Several class action complaints were filed against Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by investors who copied and expanded upon the CFTC allegations in a series of private claims for monetary damages as well as injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified relief. In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as case number 15-cv-2937, Harry Ploss et al. v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Mondelez Global LLC. On Jan. 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request to certify a class in the consolidated action. In November 2022, the District Court adjourned the trial date it had previously set for Nov. 30, 2022 and ordered the parties to brief Kraft's motions to decertify the class and for summary judgment, which briefing has been completed. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these class action matters at this time. However, based on the Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of Sept. 27, 2012, the Company expects to bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the class action. Mondelez International, Inc. is a global snacking company that manufactures and markets biscuits, chocolate, gum, candy, and powdered beverages. It owns a portfolio of well-known brands and operates in more than 150 countries. MONEY FACTORY: Taylor Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Games ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY WAYNE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MONEY FACTORY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00483-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 20, 2026) seeks recovery of illegal gambling losses by Kentucky residents who played TMF's illegal online gambling games. The Money Factory, LLC is an online social sweepstakes casino offering casino-style games, promotions, and an affiliate program. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Rhoads, Esq. RHOADS & RHOADS PSC 115 East Second Street P.O. Box 2023 Owensboro, KY 42302-2023 Telephone: (270) 683-4600 Facsimile: (270) 683-1653 Email: chris@rhoadsandrhoads.com - and - Dargan M. Ware, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 Email: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com MOSAIC CO: Faces Benedict Antitrust Class Suit in D. Kan. --------------------------------------------------------- BLANE BENEDICT, D/B/A BLAINE BENEDICT FARM, and BRYANT PARRISH FARM PARTNERSHIP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC NUTRIENT AG SOLUTIONS, NUTRIEN, LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCK AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02432-JAR-BGS (D. Kan., July 24, 2026) is a class action seeking monetary and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' unlawful and price fixing of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) Fertilizers sold and purchased throughout the United States and its territories from January 1, 2021. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Classes paid supracompetitive prices for NPK Fertilizers as Defendants have conspired to artificially inflate and fix the prices. The conspiracy is a violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws and state unfair competition laws and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiff Benedict is a farmer wo have purchased NPK Fertilizers for use in his agricultural crop growing operations. Defendant Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC produces agricultural chemicals. The Company offers concentrated phosphate and potash for use in crop nutrition, feed ingredients, and industrial products for the agricultural, wholesale, and retail markets worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7565 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNECO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP Two City Place Drive, Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and – Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 Email: sbasser@barrack.com - and - William J. Ban, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 Facsimile: (212) 688-0783 - and - Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Danielle M. Weiss, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (212) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 Email: jbarrack@barrack.com dweiss@barrack.com - and - Sterling Adlrige, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Email: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com MOSHY GAMING LLC: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moshy Gaming, LLC. The case is styled as Adrian Owen Smith, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Moshy Gaming, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00490-GNS (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Moshy Gaming, LLC offers free social casino 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 MRC CONSULTING: Appeals Arbitration Order in RICO Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAN KOETTING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Bradby, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dan Koetting, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00026-RCY, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act as well as claims for unjust enrichment and common law conspiracy arising from a tribal lending scheme. On Apr. 14, 2025, and Apr. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration, which Judge Roderick C. Young denied on June 18, 2026. The Court finds that the delegation clauses and arbitration provisions in the case are unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Therefore, the Defendants' motions are denied. The appellate case is styled as Jeffrey Bradby v. Dan Koetting, Case No. 26-1937, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JEFFREY BRADBY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Patrick Farley Dillard, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (804) 917-9804 (703) 424-7576 (703) 424-7572 (703) 424-7573 (703) 424-7571 (703) 434-3901 Defendants-Appellants DAN KOETTING, et al. are represented by: William H. Hurd, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC Riverfront Plaza, West Tower 901 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-9638 - and - Edward John Longosz, II, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 659-6619 MRC CONSULTING: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Bradby RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK KOETTING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Bradby, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dan Koetting, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00026-RCY, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act as well as claims for unjust enrichment and common law conspiracy arising from a tribal lending scheme. On Apr. 14, 2025, and Apr. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration, which Judge Roderick C. Young denied on June 18, 2026. The Court finds that the delegation clauses and arbitration provisions in the case are unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Therefore, the Defendants' motions are denied. The appellate case is styled as Jeffrey Bradby v. Mark Koetting, Case No. 26-1941, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JEFFREY BRADBY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Patrick Farley Dillard, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (804) 917-9804 (703) 424-7576 (703) 424-7572 (703) 424-7573 (703) 424-7571 (703) 434-3901 Defendants-Appellants MARK KOETTING, et al. are represented by: Paul M. Croker, Esq. Kevin William Prewitt, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP 2345 Grand Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 221-0786 - and - Charles Kalman Seyfarth, Esq. Elizabeth Scott Turner, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC 411 East Franklin Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 403-7137 MW SERVICES LTD: Mundy Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MW Services, LTD. The case is styled as Braden Lamar Mundy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MW Services, LTD., Case No. 4:26-cv-00493-GNS (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. MW Services -- https://mwservicesltd.com/ -- is a full service national general engineering and building construction firm.[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 NANO-X IMAGING: Investors With Losses Urged to Contact Bragar Eagel ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NNOX) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X securities between March 31, 2025 and April 17, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 11, 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) defendants overstated purported efficiency gains achieved in NanoX's operations, as well as the purported increased demand for its products; (2) in reality, Nano-X's production and manufacturing operations were poorly aligned with demand for Nano-X's products; (3) as a result, Nano-X was experiencing significantly increased operating expenses and cash burn; (4) the foregoing significantly increased the likelihood that Nano-X would be forced to take disruptive remedial measures with respect to its manufacturing operations, entailing significant restructuring and impairment charges; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On April 20, 2026, Nano-X announced its fourth quarter 2025 financial results. Among other items, Nano-X reported a net loss of $33.4 million for the quarter, mainly due to a $17.5M charge attributed to impairment of long-lived assets following a restructuring initiative at its Korean chip manufacturing facility. Nano-X also announced that CFO Ran Daniel would step down from that role on July 31, 2026. On this news, the price of Nano-X shares declined by $0.70 per share, or approximately 25%, from $2.85 per share on April 17, 2026 to close at $2.15 on April 20, 2026. Next Steps: If you purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X 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. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: American Cross Appeals Summary Judgment Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, et al. are taking a cross appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled American Council of Learned Societies, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Endowment for the Humanities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-3657, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants to challenge the mass termination of previously awarded grants in the National Endowment for the Humanities ("NEH"). The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants (i) engaged in arbitrary and capricious agency action by terminating grants en masse without individualized consideration; (ii) acted without statutory authorization and effectively displaced the National Endowment for the Humanities Chair and the grantmaking process Congress prescribed by effectuating terminations outside the statutory scheme set forth in 20 U.S.C. Sections 956(c), 957(f); and (iii) discriminated on the basis of viewpoint and protected characteristics by targeting projects associated with "diversity, equity, and inclusion," "gender ideology," and other subject matter that the Trump Administration regarded as inconsistent with its priorities. On Mar. 6, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On Mar. 27, 2026, the Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2026, Judge Colleen McMahon entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that the mass termination is unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect. The termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants challenged in this action was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and without statutory authority. The Court further declares that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants, and that the resulting terminations were ultra vires. The Government, along with its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, is permanently enjoined from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the mass termination. This injunction applies to all termination notices issued as part of the mass termination, including all grants identified in the Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12, NEH_AR_0000136. The appellate case is styled as American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald, Case No. 26-1996, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel F. Jacobson, Esq. John Robinson, Esq. JACOBSON LAWYERS GROUP PLLC 5100 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20016 Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 NCAA: Wisne Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Status ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROCK WISNE, AIDAN SHAW, AISLIN MALCOLM, CADE TYSON, ABIGAIL JEFFERIES, ANTHONY JOHNSON, LOUIE JORDAN, JEFFERSON DE LA CRUZ MONEGRO, ISAIAH JONES, DIMOND LOOSLI, BRETT GRIFFITHS, and, JAKE MORELL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03063-CNS-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), and District of Colorado Local Rule 7.1, to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons in the United States who began to play in collegiate sports in the 2022–2023 season, competed in NCAA Division I sports, and completed four years of eligibility as defined by the NCAA's prior rules by the conclusion of the 2025–2026 season, and are therefore barred from playing a fifth season due to the NCAA's adoption and immediate implementation of the Five-Year Eligibility Rule." The Defendant governs college athletics across more than 1,100 schools in the US and Canada. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wufjln at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Christian Hudson, Esq. Alexandra Klein, Esq. Michael J. Flannery, Esq. Alexandra Warren, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 6220 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com christian@cuneolaw.com aklein@cuneolaw.com mflannery@cuneolaw.com awarren@cuneolaw.com - and - Bruce L. Braley, Esq. Alex R. Wilschke, Esq. Brian N. Aleinikoff, Esq. Adrian G. Johnson, Esq. LEVENTHAL PUGA BRALEY P.C. 950 S. Cherry St, Suite 600 Denver, CO 8026 Telephone: (303) 759-9945 Facsimile: (303) 759-9692 E-mail: bbraley@leventhal-law.com awilschke@leventhal-law.com brian@leventhal-law.com ajohnson@leventhal-law.com - and - Elliot S. Abrams, Esq. CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER & ABRAMS, PLLC 133 Fayetteville Street, 4th Floor Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-3114 Facsimile: (919) 832-07739 E-mail: elliot.abrams@cheshirepark.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@saglaw.co - and - C. Peter Goplerud III, Esq. NATIONAL LITIGATION LAW GROUP 401 W. Broadway Ave. Endi, OK 73701 Telephone: (904) 502-9515 E-mail: pgoplerud@nationlit.com - and - Robert A. Boland, Esq. Diana Florence, Esq. Frank Hawkins, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 1000 Jackson Street Toledo, OH 43604 E-mail: rboland@shumaker.com dflorence@shumaker.com fhawkins@shumaker.com NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Securities Suit Dismissal Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- NeoGenomics 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Goldenberg shareholder class suit and shareholder derivative suits. On Dec. 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers as defendants (the Goldenberg Matter). This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between Feb. 27, 2020, and April 26, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the Company's menu of tests, business operations, and compliance with health care laws and regulations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Goldenberg Matter on Feb. 5, 2024, and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on March 21, 2024. On March 13, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing the Goldenberg Matter with prejudice. On April 10, 2026, the plaintiff appealed the judgment and order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and expert fees. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims alleged in the lawsuit, but there is no guarantee that it will prevail. As of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of this matter is not estimable or probable. Additionally, on April 27, 2023, a shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Company captioned Puskarich v. VanOort, et al. in Clark County, Nevada, naming certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The allegations in this derivative action are substantially similar to the allegations asserted in the Goldenberg Matter. Substantially similar shareholder derivative actions were subsequently filed in Lee County, Florida and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wong v. VanOort, et al. and Mellema v. VanOort, et al., respectively. Proceedings in the shareholder derivative actions are currently stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the Goldenberg Matter. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims alleged in these lawsuits, but there is no guarantee that it will prevail. As of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of these derivative matters is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a clinical laboratory company that specializes in cancer diagnostics, offering a broad menu of genetic, molecular, and pathology testing services to hospitals, pathologists, oncologists, and pharmaceutical firms. It provides diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive testing designed to support cancer care and precision medicine. NETCREDIT LOAN: Sharp Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Sharp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NETCREDIT LOAN SERVICES, LLC D/B/A NETCREDIT, Case No. 502026CA006857XXXAMB was removed from the Circuit Court, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 9:26-cv-80865-AMC. The Plaintiff alleges purported claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff also asserts claims arising under Florida state law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brandon T. White, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 374-8500 Fax: (305) 789-7799 Email: brandon.white@hklaw.com NIAGEN BIOSCIENCE: Hart Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARYN HART, CLARE ERSLEV, and ANISE IVEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NIAGEN BIOSCIENCE, INC. and CHROMADEX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06647 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) seeks to halt Defendants' unlawful sales and marketing of their Tru Niagen nicotinamide riboside dietary supplements and obtain damages Plaintiffs sustained as a result of Defendants' illegal sales and false and misleading marketing in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and other state consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants' marketing campaign for the products centers around the claim that the products are "clinically proven" to significantly increase nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) levels and claim that the products provide support for anti-aging, vitality, cognitive health, cardiovascular health, immune health, muscle recovery, cellular repair, and energy improving benefits. However, an independent review conducted by the National Advertising Division shows that Defendants misrepresent the science behind the products and the purported benefits they advertise providing to consumers. Specifically, Defendants' advertising claims that the products are "clinically proven" to increase NAD+ levels within two weeks of daily use, and that the Products provide actual benefits for anti-aging, cellular repair, and organ health, among other claims. By stating in their marketing that the products are "clinically proven" to provide these benefits, the Defendants overstate and misrepresent clinical findings about the Products and their health benefits and falsely represent to the ordinary consumer that the Products have been proven through rigorous scientific testing to actually provide these health outcomes, says the suit. Niagen Bioscience, Inc. is a Los Angeles, California-based bioscience company founded in 1999 that specializes in aging and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) research.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin B. Farar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 910 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 614-7260 Facsimile: (310) 614-7260 E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Sophia V. Pintar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com spintar@kaplanfox.com NICK LAMB: Hewitt Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Micah Donald Hewitt (PRO SE), on their own Behalf and those similarly situated, V. Nick Lamb, Joseph Roemmich, Merrae Duncan, Rick Johnston, Amber Pirgglia, Melissa Maturan, Aaron Haynes, Jerry Hettich, Desirae Kummer, Janell Gerberding, Kenneth Van Dentop, Noah Reichelt, Irena Thomason, Mikaela Gilbert, Susan Thompson, Cierra Revobrio, Cody Hanson Shelby Black, Case No. 4:26-cv-04128-ECS (D.S.D.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification pursuant to federal rules of Civil procedure 23 and local civil rule 23.1. The Plaintiffs define the class as follows: "All presently incarcerated within the South Dakota Department of Corrections." The Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action for injunctive and declaratory relief on May 11 2026, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983 and 1988 and 22 U.S.C.A. section 2201 et seq., for violations of the Eighth Amendment's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7UvGlB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Micah Hewitt South Dakota State Penitentiary 1600 N Drive/P.O. Box 5911 Sioux Falls, SD 57117 NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Sales Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Nike has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the sportswear brand uses fake discounts on its website and mobile app to induce consumers to make purchases. The 29-page false advertising lawsuit contends that Nike advertises shoes and apparel on Nike.com and the Nike app with fabricated strikethrough reference prices along with corresponding "sale" prices and a calculation of the apparent percentage discount in order to trick consumers into believing that they are receiving a special deal even when no real savings are being offered. According to the suit, Nike's reference prices are inflated and do not actually reflect the prices at which the products were sold in the recent past. The lawsuit alleges that Nike's "sales" often last longer than 90 days, meaning its reference prices are "stale" and not indicative of the products' actual value. The lawsuit claims that displaying inflated reference prices is a "known" strategy for retailers that has been deployed to increase sales, unload excess inventory and induce consumers to purchase products that they otherwise would only have been willing to pay less for. The suit argues that Nike's inflated reference prices and offers of "extra" markdowns via promotional codes work in tandem to create a false sense of urgency and incentivize consumers to act quickly. The filing claims that Nike's deceptive conduct runs afoul of California's False Advertising Law, which requires that any published "former price" reflect the true market price of the product within the previous three months, unless the retailer notes in the advertisement when the product was sold at the listed reference price. "Simply put, an item 'on sale' in California must have been openly and actively offered for sale at the advertised 'former price' within 90 days of the sale," the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, an investigation conducted by the plaintiff's counsel using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, a digital archive of website snapshots, confirmed that Nike's so-called sales frequently lasted for three months or longer. For example, the lawsuit says that the plaintiff's counsel discovered that between September 8, 2025 and March 14, 2026, black Nike Air Max 2017 sneakers were listed with a $190 reference price and various lower "sale" prices, even though the shoes were continuously on sale for at least those six months. The suit calls this "emblematic" of Nike's deceptive conduct, as consumers were led to believe that they were receiving a good deal by way of a false and inflated reference price. Moreover, additional pricing obtained by the plaintiff's counsel indicated that the Nike Air Max 2017s may have been on sale for a staggering 14 months. "Unfortunately, Nike's deceptive strategy was successful, and as a result of Nike's misrepresentations and false statements, [the plaintiff] and other consumers were tricked into purchasing Nike products and paid more for Nike products than they otherwise would have paid," the case states. The Nike class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in California who purchased a Nike product through Nike's website or mobile app at a discount from a higher advertised reference price on or after July 21, 2022. [GN] OHIO: Pivonka Appeals Judgment Entered in Pinvonka Case ------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff-Appellants Michael A. Pivonka, et al., took an appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, Eighth Appellate District from a court order granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the class suit styled as MICHAEL A. PIVONKA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAUREEN CORCORAN, Director, Ohio Department of Medicaid, Defendant, Case No. CV-13-804235. Judge John P. O'Donnell granted the motion on May 19, 2026, pursuant to Rule 3 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. Maureen Corcoran is sued in her official capacity as Director, Ohio Department of Medicaid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com - and - James A. DeRoche, Esq. GARSON JOHNSON LLC 2900 Detroit Avenue Van Roy Building, Second Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-9330 Facsimile: (216) 696-8558 E-mail: jderoche@garson.com - and - Christian R. Patno, Esq. MCCARTHY, LEBIT, CRYSTAL & LIFFMAN CO., L.P.A. 101 Prospect Avenue, West 1800 Midland Bldg. Cleveland, OH 44115-1088 Telephone: (216) 696-1422 E-mail: crp@mccarthylebit.com ORACLE CORP: Andrade Balks at Compromised Students' Info -------------------------------------------------------- TONI ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION; GLENDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01659-ADA-SH (W.D. Tex., June 18, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract, arising from a data breach that exposed student records. On June 15, 2026, public reporting from the dark web revealed that over 62 gigabytes of Glendale Community College data, comprising approximately 304,000 files, were compromised across Oracle's PeopleSoft Campus Solutions. The data breach exposed 150,000+ GCC student records, including the names, dates of birth, emails, login and enrollment mapping files, new student enrollment CSVs, immunization compliance logs, admission checklist reports, financial aid batch exports, and transcript PDFs spanning September 2020 through June 2026. According to the complaint, the data breach was the result of a ransomware attack wherein malicious code infiltrated Oracle's PeopleSoft applications between May 27, 2026, and June 9, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' inadequate data security practices and failure to safeguard personally identifiable information, Plaintiff and other affected individuals suffered injury, including the theft of their data, invasion of privacy, and the risk of identity theft and fraud, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former student of Defendant GCC. Oracle Corporation develops, markets, and maintains the PeopleSoft Campus Solutions software suite, which Glendale Community College utilizes for its central student information system. Glendale Community College is a two-year community college with its headquarters located in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 855-1850 Facsimile: (214) 720-6075 E-mail: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Freitas Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenneth Freitas and Tyree Bradford, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD – SACRAMENTO, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV014429 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02553-JAM-CSK. The Plaintiffs allege ten causes of action against Defendant for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510; Failure to Provide Meal Periods Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Failure to Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements Under Labor Code Section 226; Violation of Labor Code Section 204; Violation of Labor Code Section 203; Illegal Wage Deductions Under Labor Code Section 221; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses Under Labor Code Section 2802; and Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy Choe, Esq. Diana Estrada, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 555 S. Flower Street, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Ohone: (213) 443-5100 Facsimile: (213) 443-5101 Email: amy.choe@wilsonelser.com diana.estrada@wilsonelser.com PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Court Adopts Discovery Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael David Scheidle, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. PalAmerican Security, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01167-GMN-MDC (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Couvillier III entered an order adopting the parties' discovery and pre-trial deadlines. At this time, discovery will be bifurcated. The parties may seek to amend the deadlines following a determination on a motion for class certification. -- The Parties request a discovery period closing on Feb. 26, 2027. -- The Parties shall file any motions to amend pleadings or add parties by Nov. 30, 2026, -- The Parties shall file any dispositive motions by March 26, 2027. -- The joint pretrial order shall be filed by April 26, 2027. -- The Parties are attending a mediation on Sept. 9, 2026. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant had systemic employment practices that resulted in the following violations of Nevada wage-and-hour laws: (1) failure to pay Plaintiff Class members minimum wages for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay Plaintiff and Class members overtime wages; (3) failure to timely pay Plaintiff and Class members all earned wages; and (4) breach of contract. PalAmerican is a full-service security company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJP9OF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Sniegocki, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 8565 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 162 Las Vegas NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 623-7279 Facsimile: (702) 623-7270 E-mail: dsniegocki@hkm.com - and - Carolyn Hunt, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Katherine Dishongh Krebs, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com kkrebs@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew L. Durham, Esq. S. Barrett Thompson, Esq. King Scow Koch Durham LLC 11500 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 210 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 833-1100 Facsimile: (702) 833-1107 E-mail: mdurham@kskdlaw.com - and - Scott H. Casher, Esq. Angelika Ekpo, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 9 West Broad Street, Suite 710 Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 977-8300 Facsimile: (475) 977-8301 E-mail: cashers@whiteandwilliams.com ekpoa@whiteandwilliams.com PBM LLC: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. Sup. ---------------------------------------------------- EZEQUIEL LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PBM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 158914/2026 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., July 17, 2026) is a wage-and-hour class action brought by the Plaintiff to remedy Defendant's violations of New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a common practice of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work without proper pay, including overtime work. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked and that they were not receiving minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked. Moreover, the Defendants further knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to reimbursement of all necessary business-related expenses and that they were not being reimbursed for all necessary business-related expenses, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants at the New York city location, from January 2026 to June 2026. PBM, LLC operates a commercial facilities and janitorial services company in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Joanna Ghosh, 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 joanna@calljustice.com j.apsan@calljustice.com PEPSICO INC: Walsh Sues Over Mislabeled Gatorade Products --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WALSH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC. and THE GATORADE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-05191-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a consumer class action arising from the Defendants' systemic practices of marketing, advertising, and labeling of its products using false, misleading, and deceptive representations of their versions of Gatorade: classic Gatorade, Gatorade Zero, Gatorade Zero Thirst Quencher Powder, and the "Lower Sugar" formulation of Gatorade. According to the complaint, the Defendants are attempting to monetize the explosion of this growing market of health-focused shoppers by falsely claiming that the products have benefits they do not, in fact, have -- and falsely claiming that the Products lack artificial flavorings and ingredients that they, in fact, contain. Each of the four products are marketed with similar material claims regarding its characteristics, qualities, ingredients, benefits, or performance that are untrue, misleading, or lack adequate substantiation. Through these uniform misrepresentations and omissions, the Defendants have induced consumers to purchase products they otherwise would not have purchased, or to pay a premium price for products that do not possess the attributes promised on the labels and in Defendants' marketing materials and websites. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situation consumers seeking redress for Defendants' violations of applicable state consumer protection laws and for the economic injury caused by Defendants' deceptive conduct. PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food and beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron L. Schwartz, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: aschwartz@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com PERFECTION BAKERIES: Patty Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY PATTY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PERFECTION BAKERIES, INC., d/b/a AUNT MILLIE'S, Case No. 3:26-cv-00266-TMR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, July 24, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant at its facility in Sidney, Ohio as an hourly, non-exempt employee as defined by the FLSA from approximately February 2021 to the present. The Plaintiff works, and has worked, as a maintenance employee. The Plaintiff primarily performed non-exempt duties for the Defendant in furtherance of its business of producing and distributing food products. During his employment, he has worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek. Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members for the time they spent changing out of their street clothes and shoes and into their required sanitary clothing and protective equipment. This resulted in unpaid overtime compensation in weeks in which they worked 40 or more hours, says the suit. Operating as Aunt Millie's, the Defendant produces bread and other baked goods at plant locations across the Midwest, including in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com POLARIS INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Polaris 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from consolidated consumer protection class suit in California. The Company is a party to certain class action and putative class action lawsuits brought by the same plaintiffs' counsel and largely repeating the same allegations under various state consumer protection laws regarding rollover protection structure certifications for off-road vehicles sold in California. The first case brought in federal court in California related to this matter, Guzman/Albright, was initially reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2020. The federal district court granted summary judgment against both plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed those rulings. In September 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued two rulings that reversed the district court's summary judgment orders and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss one plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiff whose claims were dismissed without prejudice then refiled a putative class action in California state court under the name Albright. In June 2023, the state court in Albright granted the parties' stipulation to stay that case pending a decision on class certification in the federal Guzman action. On Sept. 27, 2023, the federal district court in Guzman entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court certified a California class for the plaintiff's claim seeking money damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. It denied class certification for the plaintiff's claim seeking injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On Oct. 11, 2023, Polaris filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit to appeal the portion of the district court's order granting class certification, and on Dec. 14, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied Polaris's petition. On Jan. 16, 2026, the state court in Albright entered an order setting a hearing for March 24, 2026, to review the stay of proceedings in that case. On March 19, 2026, the state court entered an order continuing the stay and rescheduled the status conference for May 20, 2026, to review the status of the stay. On May 18, 2026, the state court entered another order continuing the stay and rescheduling the status conference for Aug. 18, 2026. Throughout this period, the Albright matter has remained stayed while developments proceed in the related federal litigation. Plaintiffs' counsel's related case, Hellman/Berlanga, was first reported in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2021. Since that time, the Hellman plaintiff has been dismissed from the litigation. In May 2023, the remaining plaintiff in the Berlanga case filed a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed. On July 16, 2024, the federal district court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court certified a California class for the plaintiff's claim seeking money damages but denied class certification on the plaintiff's claim seeking injunctive relief. On July 17, 2024, the federal district court ordered that the Guzman case and the Berlanga case be consolidated for all purposes. On Feb. 27, 2025, the federal district court vacated the pretrial deadlines and the previously scheduled May 5, 2025, trial date. The court indicated that it will issue a new schedule and trial date after it rules on the pending summary judgment and class decertification motions. These consolidated federal proceedings, together with the stayed Albright state court action, remain ongoing and could result in further procedural developments or changes in the scope of the certified classes. In addition to these consumer class actions, with respect to each of the aforementioned class action and putative class action lawsuits, we are unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss. Polaris Inc. is a manufacturer of powersports vehicles, including off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and boats, serving recreational and utility customers worldwide. The company designs, engineers, and markets its products through a global network of dealers and distributors. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Perkins-Gardner Appeals to Minn. Ct. of Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARIO PERKINS-GARDNER is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Dario Perkins-Gardner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Presbyterian Homes and Services, Defendant, Case No. _______, in the Civil Division Hennepin County District Court of Minnesota. The case type is stated as Other. The appellate case is styled as Dario Perkins-Gardner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellant, vs. Presbyterian Homes and Services, Respondent, Case No. 26-1274, in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, filed on July 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DARIO PERKINS-GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Anthony Lavell Brown, Esq. CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC 287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20 St. Paul, MN 55101 Defendant-Respondent PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AND SERVICES is represented by: Brandon James Wheeler, Esq. FELHABER LARSON 220 South 6th St., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-6321 QUEST HOSPITALITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY ANICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and KRYSTLE ANICH, v. QUEST HOSPITALITY CONCEPTS, LLC D/B/A THE CITIZEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-01994-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion and enlarging the deadline for Quest to respond to the motion to certify class by Aug. 6, 2026. Such relief is necessary to allow Quest's counsel to depose the Plaintiffs and obtain copies of the transcripts back from the court reporter in reasonable time before the deadline to respond. Additionally, Counsel for Quest has communicated with the Plaintiffs' counsel via telephone on Monday, July 13, 2026, and the Plaintiffs' counsel has confirmed that the Plaintiffs do not oppose the requested extension of time. On Oct. 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Initial Complaint against Quest, alleging collective action claims under Florida and federal law as well as individual tortious interference claims. On July 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 for Florida Minimum Wage Act Claims. The Defendant is a Florida-based hospitality and restaurant management company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZWuQRw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jeremy C. Branning, Esq. Jacob F. Barnes, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 13 Palafox Place, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (448) 239-6500 E-mail: jbranning@joneswalker.com jacobbarnes@joneswalker.com pimperial@joneswalker.com jdallman@joneswalker.com RALPHS GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holland Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- SCOT HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22962 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Holland was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver. Ralphs Grocery Company operates in the grocery retail industry. The Company provides pharmacy and health services, offers pickup and delivery options, and runs grocery stores. Ralphs Grocery Co serves local consumers seeking groceries, household supplies, and health products in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 RAMACO RESOURCES: Faces 2 Class Actions Over Brook Mine Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramaco Resources, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form A, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2026, that it is currently facing two class actions in two courts over its disclosures regarding its development and active mining status of the Ramaco's Brook Mine rare earth and critical minerals project in Wyoming. One putative class action complaint was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Randall Atkins, and its Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy Sussman, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It is brought as a putative class action on behalf of investors who allegedly purchased or otherwise acquired the company securities during the asserted class period. The purported class period runs from July 31, 2025, through Oct. 23, 2025. The plaintiff alleges that, during this period, the defendants made misrepresentations or omissions regarding the status and progress of this mining project. The plaintiff seeks determination of class action status under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint requests an award of compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages allegedly sustained, including interest. It also seeks reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, together with such other relief as the court deems just and proper. In addition to the putative securities class action, the case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned "Lynn Henning, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Ramaco Resources, Inc., Randall W. Atkins, And Jeremy R. Sussman," (Case No. 1:26-cv-00846). Ramaco Resources, Inc. is a developer and operator of metallurgical coal and related mineral projects, with operations focused primarily in Central Appalachia and the Powder River Basin. It supplies coal and associated products to domestic and international steel and industrial customers. REBUILT BROKERAGE: Pettway Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- CHELSI PETTWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REBUILT BROKERAGE, LLC D/B/A REBUILT REALTY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00999 (M.D. Tenn., July 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for engaging in an aggressive and persistent pattern of text message bombardment to Plaintiff. The complaint relates that to promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic sales call campaigns to consumers with no regards for consumers' rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even after customers opt out from Defendant's messages. Plaintiff Chelsi Pettway is the sole subscriber of the residential telephone number ending in 8422 (the "8422 Number") that received Defendant's text message solicitations. Specifically, on November 2024, Defendant began sending multiple telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's 8422 Number, from multiple telephone numbers. On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff received more text messages. On December 10, 2024, Plaintiff responded with the message to opt out of any further text message communications with Defendant. Despite Plaintiff's unequivocal opt-out request and Defendant's confirmation, Defendant engaged in an aggressive and persistent pattern of text message bombardment, sending unwanted messages to Plaintiff's 8422 Number, including but not limited to those sent on January 10, 2025, February 14, 2025, and February 20, 2025, from Defendant's number, says the suit. Through this action, 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. Defendant, Rebuilt Brokerage, LLC d/b/a Rebuilt Realty is a limited liability company that provides real estate brokerage services to consumers, based out of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Samuel Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.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 RUTHERFORD COUNTY ADULT: Merckson Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rutherford County Adult Detention Center, et al. The case is styled as Ceaser Merckson, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Rutherford County Adult Detention Center, Rutherford County Adult Detention Center, Officer Owen, CPL Doughtie, Case No. 2:25-cv-07319-CFK (M.D. Tenn., July 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions for Prisoner Civil Rights. The Rutherford County Adult Detention Center is a correctional facility located at 940 New Salem Highway in Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. S&P GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Australian Inv. Loss Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from investment losses class suit in Australia. A class action lawsuit that was filed in Australia on Aug. 7, 2020, against the Company and a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit relates to alleged investment losses in collateralized debt obligations that were rated by Ratings prior to the financial crisis between 2005 and 2007. The Company states that it can provide no assurance that it will not be obligated to pay significant amounts in order to resolve the lawsuit on terms deemed acceptable. In addition, the Company notes that, from time to time, it receives customer complaints that may, if not resolved through dialogue, result in litigation. The Company believes it has strong contractual protections in its customer arrangements and does not expect to incur material losses as a result of these matters. Nonetheless, it continues to manage these disputes proactively in the interest of maintaining customer relationships. S&P Global Inc. is a leading provider of credit ratings, benchmarks, analytics, and data for the global capital and commodity markets. It operates through businesses including S&P Global Ratings, S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Dow Jones Indices, and S&P Global Commodity Insights. SAFETYFIRST SYSTEMS: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the SafetyFirst 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 SafetyFirst data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. SafetyFirst Security Incident: What Happened? Commercial vehicle safety solutions company SafetyFirst Systems has reported a data breach involving sensitive information. According to a notice posted on its website, SafetyFirst detected suspicious account activity on a portion of its server environment on January 19, 2026. Following an investigation with third-party forensic specialists, the New Jersey-based company determined that an unauthorized actor had accessed its systems and acquired certain files between January 16 and January 19 of this year. The information impacted by the SafetyFirst data breach potentially included names, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers, varying by affected individual. The SafetyFirst Systems data breach was also reported to the Texas Attorney General's Office on July 23, 2026. A sample of the notification letter sent to affected individuals the same day can be seen below. What You Can Do After the SafetyFirst Data Breach If your information was exposed in the SafetyFirst 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 SafetyFirst 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] SAINT PETE MRI: 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 Saint Pete MRI 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 Saint Pete MRI data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Saint Pete MRI Security Incident: What Happened? Saint Pete MRI (SPMRI), a diagnostic imaging and sleep lab serving the area surrounding Tampa Bay, Florida, has reported a data breach involving personal and protected health information. According to a July 22, 2026 notice posted on its website, SPMRI became aware of suspicious activity in its network on or around February 23, 2025. Following an investigation with an independent team, SPMRI determined on July 15, 2026 that the data potentially accessed without authorization may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state identification numbers, medical information and health insurance information. The Saint Pete MRI data breach was also reported to the Vermont Attorney General's Office on July 22, 2026. Notices were mailed to those affected by the SPMRI data breach on the same day. What You Can Do After the Saint Pete MRI Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Saint Pete MRI 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 Saint Pete MRI 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] SCHYLLING INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Dangerous Sensory Toys ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Schylling, Inc. has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to adequately warn consumers that its NeeDoh squeezable toys may rupture and eject dangerously hot adhesive liquid when heated, posing a significant burn risk. According to the 47-page defective products lawsuit, Schylling's NeeDoh line of squeezable sensory toys have been the subject of numerous reports in which children suffered second- and third-degree burns, hospitalization, permanent scarring and other serious injuries after the toys' outer shell ruptured and ejected hot and sticky filling. The products at issue in the NeeDoh lawuit, which are promoted to children and adults to help with relaxation, fidgeting, focus and stress relief, include the Nice Cube, Dream Drop, Original Groovy Glob, Super NeeDoh, Teenie NeeDoh, Gumdrop, Groovy Fruit, Color Changing NeeDoh, Shaggy NeeDoh, Dohnut and Jelly Dohnut, Squeezza, Nice-sicle, Press Doh, Color Change Cube and more. In November 2024, a viral TikTok trend encouraged children to microwave their NeeDoh toys to make them softer and more malleable, with "catastrophic" results, per the complaint. The filing shares that one 11-year-old boy microwaved his toy after viewing a TikTok video, and when he squeezed it, the filling reportedly "burst" onto his body, causing third-degree burns and about four months of treatment, infection, scarring and continuing limitations. The lawsuit claims Schylling has received various other reports from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) describing cases where NeeDoh toys burst and exploded during regular play, including in situations that did not involve microwaving the products, putting the company on notice that the toys posed a serious safety risk to children. Per the case, NeeDoh toys differ in size and shape but share the same general construction in which a flexible polymer shell encloses a sticky, gel-like filling of polyvinyl alcohol, maltose or a similar formulation. The complaint says that when the toys are exposed to heat, including from sunlight or being left in a hot car, the filling may change in temperature, volume, pressure or viscosity, which can result in the squishy toys bursting and ejecting dangerously hot filling onto a user's skin. Importantly, because the NeeDoh products' outer shell does not conduct heat well, the exterior of the toy may feel cool even while the contents are hot enough to cause serious burns, the filing says. Additionally, the lawsuit states that the sticky filling may adhere to a person's skin, trapping heat and compounding the severity of the burns. The lawsuit claims Schylling is aware of the danger associated with the alleged NeeDoh defect but has failed to adequately warn consumers, instead choosing "profits over children's safety." Per the case, a previous warning on the products' packaging stated only that the "[c]ontents may become hot" when left in a car or exposed to direct sun, which the suit argues did not fully communicate the extent and severity of the resulting rupture or explosion of scalding adhesive liquid. The filing conveys that an ordinary toy marketed for everyday life, including for children with sensory needs, would foreseeably be exposed to elevated temperatures in cars, windows, backpacks, outdoor play areas and other common locations. By March 2025, Schylling allegedly added warnings to the toys' labels and its website that state "Do NOT heat, freeze, or microwave, may cause personal injury," which the filing says do not provide enough information to allow a parent, teacher, caregiver or child to understand the nature of the danger. "Schylling's continued omission of the known mechanism and severity of the hazard . . . demonstrates that its failure to provide a complete warning was knowing and deliberate," the lawsuit argues. The NeeDoh class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who, during the class period, purchased for personal, family, or household use a NeeDoh Nice Cube or another NeeDoh product containing a materially similar sealed flexible shell, filling and heat-related warning or omission. [GN] SEAGRASS LANDSCAPE: Perez Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- DENIRSON PEREZ, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) v. SEAGRASS LANDSCAPE, LLC, and BRUNO T. LIBERTINI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-80845 (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2026) is a class action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under laws of the United States. The complaint relates that during the relevant period, Plaintiff worked as a "landscaper", performing duties involving landscaping and yard maintenance. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but he was not paid for overtime hours at the applicable overtime rate, as required by law. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but Defendants controlled his schedule and activities. Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals were working. Due to Plaintiff's complaints about unpaid regular and overtime wages, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by refusing to pay him for his last 2 weeks of work, including overtime wages, and terminated Plaintiff's employment on June 4, 2026. At the time of his termination, Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff for his last 2 weeks of work. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40 and also willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, says the suit. Plaintiff PEREZ seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages for every hour worked over 40 during his employment; retaliatory discharge damages; liquidated damages; attorney's fees and costs; and any other relief as allowable by law. Plaintiff DENIRSON PEREZ was employed by Defendants SEAGRASS and LIBERTIN as a non-exempt, full-time landscaping employee from May 16, 2026 through June 4, 2026, or 3 weeks. Defendant SEAGRASS LANDSCAPE, LLC is a professional landscaping company based in Jupiter, Florida. Individual Defendant BRUNO T. LIBERTINI was and is now the owner/partner/and manager of Defendant corporation SEAGRASS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Parties Seek to Present Evidentiary Objections ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-ASK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation regarding consolidated appendices of evidentiary objections for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: 1. To permit the Parties to present any evidentiary objections in an organized manner without displacing their substantive Rule 23 briefing, either Party may file, concurrently with its applicable brief, a consolidated appendix of evidentiary objections as a separate attachment. 2. Any such appendix shall be deemed incorporated into and part of the brief with which it is filed solely for purposes of Civil Local Rule 7-3 but shall not count against the applicable page limitation. 3. Any appendix shall contain only: (a) a column titled "Evidence Objected To"; (b) a column titled "Grounds for Objection," which may include citations to relevant deposition testimony or other record evidence supporting the objection; and (c) a section following each objection titled "Court's Ruling as to Objection No. __: Sustained / Overruled." 4. Any appendix shall not contain additional substantive argument concerning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or other merits briefing beyond that necessary to identify the challenged evidence, state the evidentiary grounds, and cite the supporting record. 5. This stipulation does not waive any argument concerning the merits of any objection, the admissibility or weight of any evidence, or whether any material submitted with the briefing is procedurally proper. On March 27, 2026 the Plaintiff Michael Angel Ulloa II filed his Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs submitted 114 declarations in support of the Motion for Class Certification. The Parties anticipate that their briefing on the motion for class certification may include evidentiary objections to declarations or other evidence submitted in connection with the motion. Securitas is a provider of integrated electronic security solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzEsUI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Vanessa M. Rodriguez, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Boulevard, Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com vrodriguez@maternlawgroup.com ehutchins@maternlawgroup.com jhidalgo@maternlawgroup.com hahn@maternlawgroup.com csalas@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. Jasmine R. Kiaei, Esq. Landon R. Schwob, Esq. Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 230-4250 Facsimile: (818) 230-4251 E-mail: fmagnanimo@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com lschwob@fisherphillips.com lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Roeun Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cylo Van Roeun, an individual, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees v. SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV193433 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-07584. The complaint purports to state causes of action under the California Labor Code for: failure to pay minimum wages and for all hours worked; failure to pay wages and overtime; failure to pay vacation wages; failure to pay sick pay; meal period liability; rest break liability; violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); violation of Labor Code Section 221; violation of Labor Code Section 204; failure to pay reporting time pay; failure to maintain records required under Labor Code Section1174, 1174.5; and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses under Labor Code Section 2802.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.282.2500 Fax: 310.282.2501 Email: kdsullivan@thompsoncoburn.com SKIMO CO: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skimo Co. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Skimo Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-06187 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Skimo Co. -- https://skimo.co/ -- offers specialized ski mountaineering equipment, including skis, boots, bindings, clothing, and safety gear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Skyworks Solutions, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending July 3, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the securities class suit. On March 4, 2025, the Company and certain former officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the Court). The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the Company during the alleged class period. It seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On May 6, 2026, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. As a result, the putative class action is proceeding beyond the pleading stage. The Company continues to evaluate the claims and its potential exposure while asserting its defenses in the ongoing litigation. Additionally, in April 2025, the Company and certain of its directors and former officers were named in two derivative action lawsuits filed in the Court. Each of the derivative actions was brought on behalf of the Company by a putative stockholder alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of federal securities laws. The complaints seek, among other things, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. While the Company is unable to determine the ultimate outcome of these derivative suits, it believes it has substantial defenses and intends to vigorously oppose the suits. The Company plans to continue defending against these actions while monitoring any potential impact on its operations and financial condition. Skyworks Solutions, Inc. is a global semiconductor company that designs, develops and manufactures high-performance analog and mixed-signal semiconductors. It supplies its products to customers in the mobile, automotive, broadband, industrial, and aerospace and defense markets. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Christiansen Appeals Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN B. CHRISTIANSEN is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to disqualify Lead Plaintiff Nizar Sami Ayoub and his motion for recusal of Judge Valerie Caproni in the lawsuit entitled Nizar Sami Ayoub, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10292, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading representations or by failing to disclose material facts they had a duty to disclose while selling millions of shares of Spectrum common stock at artificially inflated prices. On July 13, 2026, Mr. Christiansen filed a motion to disqualify Lead Plaintiff Nizar Sami Ayoub. On July 14, 2026, Mr. Christiansen filed a motion for recusal of Judge Valerie Caproni. On July 16, 2026, Judge Caproni entered an Order denying Mr. Christiansen's motion to disqualify Lead Plaintiff Nizar Sami Ayoub and his motion for recusal. The Court explains that the cited material does not indicate that Mr. Ayoub disclosed any non-public information. The Court further sees no reason to recuse itself from this matter. Recusal is warranted when the Court's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." No reasonable individual would view the Court's denial of Mr. Christiansen's motion to disqualify Lead Plaintiff Mr. Ayoub as an indication of bias. The appellate case is styled as Ayoub v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 26-2004, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STEVEN B. CHRISTIANSEN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al. are represented by: James J. Beha, II, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 STATION FILM: Martinez Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Crew Members --------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATION FILM, INC., a California Corporation; STEPHEN ORENT, an individual; GEOFFREY OLLWERTHER, an individual; CAROLINE GIBNEY, an individual; WALMART, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22703 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide continuing wages, failure to provide complete wage statements, and wage orders, failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods, failure to pay proper overtime, failure to pay proper minimum wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to keep accurate payroll records, breach of implied employment contract, and engagement in unfair competition. Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as a crew member during the time periods relevant to this complaint. Station Film, Inc. is a bicoastal production company based in New York and Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com SUN COMMUNITIES: Continues to Defend Manufactured Home Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sun Communities 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc., the Company, and several other large manufactured housing operators in the United States. These complaints, filed since Aug. 31, 2023, allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by sharing and receiving competitively sensitive non-public information in order to maintain artificially high site rents. The complaints have been consolidated into a single proceeding captioned In re Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-06715. In addition, plaintiffs in the consolidated antitrust action seek both injunctive and monetary relief, along with an award of attorneys' fees. The Company stated that it is currently unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result from an adverse final decision in the litigation, but acknowledged that an unfavorable outcome could be material to its results of operations in the periods in which such an outcome becomes probable and estimable. The Company has asserted that it believes the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and has indicated that it intends to defend the matter vigorously, while cautioning that litigation is inherently uncertain and that there can be no assurance its defense will ultimately prevail. Sun Communities Inc. is a real estate investment trust that owns, operates and develops manufactured housing and recreational vehicle communities and marinas across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. It generates revenue primarily through lot rentals, home sales and related services to residents and guests in its properties. SUNFLOWER LTD: Payne Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunflower, Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Jose Kevin Gonzalez Payne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sunflower, Ltd., Sunflower Technology, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00485-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Sunflower -- https://www.sunfltd.com/ -- is a full of passion games software development Company.[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 SUNO INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pilavian Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEC PILAVIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNO, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-13400 (D. Mass., July 24, 2026) alleges that Suno failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information, including names, physical addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, purchases, and partial payment card information such as card type, expiration date and last four digits. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Suno has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Suno's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's network and exfiltrated the sensitive data of 55 million users in or around November 2025 (the Data Breach). The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept, says the suit. In response to the Data Breach, a spokesperson from Suno did not dispute the number of users affected and confirmed that the company experienced a security incident in November 2025. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as November 2025, victims were not informed of the Data Breach until July 20, 2026, when news outlets broke the news publicly. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach for nine months until public news sources disclosed the breach. The Defendant has not provided, and does not appear to have provided, any notice regarding the Data Breach, the suit added. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. Suno is a generative AI platform that creates complete, original songs from simple text prompts, allowing users to create full audio tracks in under a minute.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Armijo Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Armijo, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26CV193082 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07590. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 9 causes of action for: violation of Labor Codes due to unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime; meal break violations; rest break violations; wages not timely paid during employment; wage statement violations; untimely final wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and violation of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Hazel U. Poei, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com - and - Jane J. Kim, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: jane.kim@jacksonlewis.com SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Appeals Wolters Suit Order to 8th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Chris Wolters, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sweepsteaks Limited, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03280-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged engagement in illegal Internet casino business practices. The appellate case is styled as Chris Wolters v. Sweepsteaks Limited, Case No. 26-2459, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 22, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before August 31, 2026; -- Appendix is due on or before September 10, 2026; -- Appellant's Brief is due on September 10, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee CHRIS WOLTERS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. Brant D. Penny, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT & WENDORF 80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joseph E. Nelson, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON & GLUEK 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 - and - Lee Owen, Esq. Vildan Aksoz Teske, Esq. TESKE LAW, PLLC 80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 767-0523 (612) 767-0521 Defendant-Appellant SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED is represented by: Kim Conroy, Esq. A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq. John Mikuta, Esq. IFRAH LAW FIRM 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 524-4143 (202) 524-4141 (336) 554-2213 - and - Andrew David Parker, Esq. Eric Zumbach, Esq. Nathaniel Zylstra, Esq. PARKER & DANIELS 888 Colwell Building 123 Third Street, N. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 355-4100 SYSTEM PAVERS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $350,544 ------------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received notice that the System Pavers LLC data breach that occurred between Sept. 20, 2024, and Oct. 4, 2024, may have compromised their personal information could be eligible to claim up to $3,000 from a class action settlement. System Pavers agreed to pay $350,544 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to protect sensitive personal information, including names and Social Security numbers, did not use reasonable data security measures and delayed notifying affected individuals about the breach. Who can file a claim for a data breach settlement? Class members are individuals residing in the United States, including current and former employees, as well as any other individuals whose data System Pavers stored in the affected systems the breach potentially compromised. This includes those who received notification that the data breach may have compromised their personal information. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Documented losses: Class members can claim up to $3,000 per person for documented and unreimbursed monetary losses from fraud or identity theft the data breach caused. Examples of covered expenses include fees for credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing/unfreezing credit, costs to replace IDs and postage to contact banks by mail. -- Lost time: Class members can claim up to four hours at $20 an hour ($80 maximum) for time spent dealing with the data breach. This payment is included in the $3,000 cap for documented losses. -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not submit a claim for documented losses or lost time can submit a claim to receive a one-time pro rata cash payment. This is estimated at $100 for California residents and $80 for residents of other states. The settlement administrator will determine the final amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Credit monitoring: All class members are eligible to enroll in three years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes $1 million in financial fraud insurance and monitoring for identity theft, unauthorized transactions and high-risk financial activity. If the program detects suspicious activity, class members will have access to a fraud resolution agent. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form, complete it and submit it to the settlement administrator by mail or email. To file an online claim, class members must provide the notice ID and confirmation code from the personalized notice they received. Settlement administrator's mailing address: System Pavers Data Security Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 Settlement administrator's email address: info@SystemPaversDataIncident.com The claim deadline is Sept. 28, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Documented losses: Class members must provide supporting documentation, such as bank statements, receipts or other evidence, to show the data breach caused the expenses. Notes or self-made papers alone are not sufficient. -- Lost time: Class members must briefly describe how they spent the claimed time. -- Alternative cash payment or credit monitoring: No documentation required. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Physical check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $350,544 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $116,848 -- Service award to class representative: $3,000 -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by the number of claims filed -- Documented losses and lost time claims: Total determined by number of valid claims filed Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 28, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 28, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 13, 2026 When is the System Pavers settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed a cyberattack on System Pavers' computer systems in September 2024 exposed personal information, including names and Social Security numbers. Systems Pavers denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risk of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $3,000 Deadline: September 28, 2026 [GN] TARGET CORPORATION: Cavallaro Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation. The case is styled as Patricia Cavallaro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 7:26-cv-06165 (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon Santurce, PR 00907 Phone: (787) 493-5088 Fax: (646) 843-7619 Email: Hunter@nsprlaw.com TEXAS: BDHXTDRC Seeks Class Certifcation ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beijing Daxing Huaxin Xingbang Technology Development Research Center, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated And HXXB USA Research Center, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ken Paxton, In his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas, Case No. 1:25-cv-01981-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsels. The suit says that the Plaintiffs are narrow tailoring their lawsuit to the Challenged Provisions. The Plaintiffs are not claiming to have standing over all persons or entities impacted by S.B. 17. Rather, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting exclusively of those persons or entities who are similarly situated to them: Chinese domiciled individuals or entities or their U.S.-based subsidiaries who are prohibited by S.B. 17 from entering a long-term leasehold in violation of the U.S. Constitution. More specifically, the Plaintiffs request certification of the class of entities and individuals that have been prohibited from entering a commercial lease since Sept. 1, 2025, by S.B. 17: a. "All U.S. companies or organizations that: (1) are controlled by parent companies or organizations that are headquartered in China but are not an agent of or affiliated with the Chinese government or an agent of or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party ("CCP"); and (2) intend or have intended to acquire a long-term commercial leasehold interest in real property in the State of Texas as of Sept. 1, 2025, the date the unconstitutional Challenged Provisions impacting the class became effective." b. "All U.S. subsidiaries and their parent companies, or organizations that: (1) are owned or controlled by individuals who are Chinese citizens and who are domiciled, as that term is defined by S.B. 17, in China, but are not an agent of or affiliated with the Chinese government or the CCP; and (2) intend or have intended to acquire a long-term commercial leasehold interest in real property in the State of Texas as of Sept. 1, 2025." On June 20, Governor Greg Abbott signed into law S.B. 17, which went into effect on Sept. 1, 2025, ushering in a sweeping and unprecedented regulatory regime that discriminatorily bars Chinese-domiciled individuals, companies and organizations, and their U.S.- based subsidiaries from owning, purchasing, or leasing, for more than one year (or contiguous one year periods under the Defendant's newly Proposed Rules), real property in the State of Texas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M1NVul at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zhao Guo, Esq. Curtis Lee Morrison, Esq. RED EAGLE LAW, L.C. 5256 S. Mission Road, Suite 135 Bonsall, CA 92003 Telephone: (714) 661-3446 E-mail: chuck@redeaglelaw.com curtis@redeaglelaw.com - and - Laura E. Schut, Esq. HXXB USA Research Center Telephone: (281) 755-3824 E-mail: Laura.Schut@HXXB.org The Defendant is represented by: Wade A. Johnson, Esq. Lauren Elise Saeger, Esq. TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Austin, TX 78711 Telephone: (512) 463-4139 E-mail: wade.johnson@oag.texas.gov lauren.saeger@oag.texas.gov TILRAY BRANDS: Continues to Defend LATAM Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending May 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from LATAM securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Dec. 5, 2018, a putative securities class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Aphria Inc. and certain current and former officers and directors. The action alleges that they misrepresented the value of three cannabis-producing properties that the Company acquired in Jamaica, Colombia, and Argentina, referred to as the LATAM Assets. It asserts that these alleged misstatements artificially inflated the price of the Company's publicly traded stock and that investors were harmed when the truth was purportedly revealed and the stock price declined. According to the disclosure, on Dec. 3, 2018, two short-sellers issued a report about the Company's acquisitions of the LATAM Assets, claiming that the properties were non-functional or non-existent. The report allegedly caused the price of the Company's stock to fall. The putative class action pleads that this short-seller report served as a corrective disclosure of the alleged prior misrepresentations about the LATAM Assets. The filing further states that on April 15, 2019, the Company recorded impairment charges on the LATAM Assets. This write-down allegedly caused an additional decline in the Company's stock price. The putative securities class action claims that the combination of the short-seller report and the subsequent impairment charges revealed the alleged overstatement of the LATAM Assets value, resulting in losses to investors who purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices. In addition, the filing notes that the plaintiffs moved for class certification on Jan. 28, 2022, and briefing on that motion was completed by June 28, 2022. The motion was granted, and a class was certified. On April 12, 2024, the parties filed a revised schedule for the remainder of the proceeding through trial, and as of the date of the Form 10-K, fact discovery has been completed. The Company and the individual defendants continue to assert that the claims lack merit and state that they will vigorously defend against them, while cautioning that there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome. Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company engaged in the cultivation, production, and distribution of cannabis and related products. It serves medical, adult-use, and wellness markets across multiple international jurisdictions. TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Belley Sues Over Leaked Private Information --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA BELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00678 (W.D. Wis., July 24, 2026) is a class action arising from failure of the Defendant to protect sensitive private 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 affecting its environment and provided little information on how the Data Breach occurred. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's computer systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect PII information. Plaintiff Belley is a resident of Tyngsborough, Massachusetts and a victim of the data security breach. Defendant TruStage Financial Group, Inc. is a financial services company headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, providing insurance, retirement, and investment products primarily to credit unions and their members.[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 - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 TWO MAIDS FRANCHISING: Mollins Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Two Maids Franchising LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kenneth M. Mollins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Two Maids Franchising LLC, Two Maids & A Mop, John Does 1-10 being the owners, operators, affiliates, subsidiaries, franchisees, vendors, and/or other entities responsible for the conduct alleged herein, Case No. 620335/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Contract. Two Maids -- https://twomaidsfranchise.com/ -- is an American cleaning franchise based in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth Marc Mollins, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS, P.C. 393 Veterans Memorial Hwy #101s Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 608-4100 UNIFIED DENTAL SOLUTIONS: Lawhorn Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unified Dental Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Octavia Lawhorn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unified Dental Solutions LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-06746 (W.D.N.Y., July 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Unified Dental Care -- https://www.unifieddentalsolutions.com/ -- is a dental support organization that provides specialized support services to doctors in unique locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Angye Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD AKARI ANGYE, et al., v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01515-LS (W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until after the Court resolves the Defendants' upcoming motion to dismiss and the Parties have met and conferred about an appropriate briefing schedule on the class certification motion. Addressing the Defendants' motion before briefing class certification may "spare both the parties and the court a needless, time-consuming inquiry into certification," the Defendants say. Even if the Plaintiffs' claims are not entirely dismissed, staying briefing will avoid the inefficiency of briefing class certification without the benefit of knowing which claims and parties will remain in the case after the motions to dismiss are resolved. It will also reduce the likelihood that class certification will need to be briefed twice, should the Plaintiffs decide to amend their motion in response to the Court's ruling, the Defendants add. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 29, 2026. The next day, on May 30, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. US Immigration is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sn0IrR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Virgien, Esq. Rita Lomio, Esq. Felipe Hernandez, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: kvirgien@aclu.org npp_rlomio@aclu.org npp_fhernandez@aclu.org - and - Savannah Kumar, Esq. Fabiola Alvelais, Esq. Edgar Saldivar, Esq. Adriana Pinon, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. Houston, TX 77288 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: skumar@aclutx.org falvelais@aclutx.org esaldivar@aclutx.org apinon@aclutx.org The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Samuel P. Go, Esq. Brian V. Schaeffer, Esq. Shane A. Young, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 532-4946 E-mail: Shane.a.young@usdoj.gov UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ratcliff Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FAYE RATCLIFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC and MARY BIRD PERKINS CANCER CENTER, Case No. 1:26-cv-00728-JPH (S.D. Ohio, July 24, 2026) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' sensitive information, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, physical addresses, scanned documents such as copies of driver's licenses or other government identification, insurance cards and intake forms, phone numbers, and other demographic information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are required to provide MBPCC with their Private Information and/or the Private Information of their family members. In turn, MBPCC then provides the Private Information to UTS in order for UTS to provide software services to MBPCC. Because of this, the Defendants have a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that they collect and store against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Defendants' duty to safeguard the Private, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also brings this class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information including health insurance and patient balance information such as insurance policy numbers or claims and benefits information, and medical information such as medical record numbers, dates of service and diagnosis information. MBPCC is a regional non-profit cancer care organization, providing services across Louisiana and southwest Mississippi. MBPCC uses UTS as its software vendor to manage patient information and operational workflow.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com UPLEAD LLC: Gargus Seeks Modification of Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW GARGUS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UPLEAD, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-08337-MWC-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order modifying the Scheduling Order to extend the class certification deadline by six (6) weeks. In the alternative, the Plaintiff requests that the Court modify the scheduling order to extend the class certification deadline by four (4) weeks. The Plaintiff is currently unable to file a motion for class certification supported by the current factual record, as the Defendant has not produced any documents, and the Plaintiff has thus been unable to prepare for and obtain the deposition testimony of the Defendant's employees/officers. The Plaintiff and the putative class will be prejudiced if the Plaintiff were to file a motion for class certification without the documentary and testimonial evidence to properly support such a motion. UpLead is a provider of B2B database and business contact data services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x7qIjt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Adam C. York, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 1021 West Adams St., Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com adam@crosnerlegal.com US BANK NATIONAL: Saiki Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Scott Saiki, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-18081-4 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02589. The Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of RCW 49.46; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130; failure to provide rest periods in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; failure to provide meal periods in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; willful withholding of and/or refusing to pay wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050 and RCW 49.52.070; failure to accrue, allow use of, and properly compensate paid sick leave in violation of RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620; failure to pay wages due at established pay periods in violation of RCW 49.46 et seq. and WAC 296-126-023; failure to pay wages owed at termination in violation of RCW 49.48.010 and RCW 49.52.070; failure to furnish itemized and complete wage statements in violation of WAC 296-126-040; and failure to maintain adequate records under WAC 296-128-010, WAC 296-126-050, and RCW 49.46.070.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexandria Cates, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Email: alexcates@dwt.com - and - Briana Irani, Esq. 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Email: brianairani@dwt.com - and - Emilie Woodhead, Esq. 350 South Grand Avenue, Floor 27 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Email: emiliewoodhead@dwt.com VGW HOLDINGS: Engel Balks at Illegal Online Gambling Operation -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Engel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VGW Holdings Pty Ltd.; VGW Holdings U.S., Inc.; VGW US, Inc.; VGW Malta Ltd.; VGW Games Ltd.; VGW Holdings, Ltd.; VGW Luckyland Inc.; VGW Canada; and National Sweepstakes Company LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-03021-NEB-DJF (D. Minn., June 18, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged online gambling operation in Minnesota that violates Minnesota's Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Minnesota's False Statement in Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate illegal online gambling websites in Minnesota, including ChumbaCasino.com LuckyLandCasino.com LuckyLandSlots.com and GlobalPoker.com (collectively, the "Gambling Websites"). Users of the Gambling Websites buy digital tokens, bet them on games of chance including, for example, virtual slot machines and simulated table games, and can redeem any token winnings for U.S. dollars. The complaint alleges that VGW's business practices are unfair and unconscionable because (1) operating unlicensed Internet casinos violates Minnesota's public policy as established by its statutes, rules and common law limiting "lawful gambling" to charitable gaming; (2) deceptively operating an illegal casino is unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous; and (3) VGW's operations in Minnesota have substantially injured Plaintiff and the Class. By misrepresenting its illegal gambling business as a legal "social plus casino," VGW also engages in the act, use, and employment of fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement, and deceptive practices, says the suit. VGW Holdings Pty Ltd. is a for-profit Australian limited Company that specializes in the development and publication of online casino-themed gambling websites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Joe E. Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Lee T. Owen, Esq. TESKE LAW PLLC 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 767-0521 E-mail: teske@teskelaw.com owen@teskelaw.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com VITAC CORP: Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATELYN ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, v. VITAC CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00329-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Brimmer entered an order that: -- The settlement class is certified as follows: "All current and former closed captioners in Colorado who worked for the Defendant from Jan. 31, 2022 through the date of final settlement approval"; -- Class Counsel's unopposed motion for approval of attorneys' fees is granted; -- The joint motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted. -- Class counsel is awarded $200,000 from the settlement fund, which represents forty percent of the net settlement fund; -- Class counsel shall pay the amount Sharron Cathcart is owed under the settlement agreement out of the attorney's fees Award; and -- The named plaintiff Katelyn Anderson shall be paid $5,000 from the settlement fund as a service award. On Jan. 31, 2025, the plaintiff filed her complaint against defendant Vitac Corporation, alleging that the defendant required its employees to perform "prep time," where they were required to clock-in and perform "preparation tasks," such as connecting to customers' facilities, conducting research, and conducting quality assurance, before the scheduled start of their shifts. The complaint alleges that Ms. Anderson and similarly situated employees recorded their prep time, but were not paid for that time. The settlement agreement states that defendant will pay a Maximum Settlement Amount of $500,000. VITAC is an American audio transcription company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KWQJ3M at no extra charge.[CC] WINCO HOLDINGS: Jezierski Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Jezierski, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive Case No. 26-2-01962-06 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Clark, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05823. The Plaintiff alleges class action claims for violation of the Washington Minimum Wage Act and its accompanying regulations. The Defendants engaged in a common course of failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with a paid ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked; and requiring or permitting Plaintiff and Class Members to work more than three consecutive hours without a rest period.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kyle D. Nelson, Esq. Trinh T. Tran, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com trtran@seyfarth.com WOOPLA INC: Taylor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woopla, Inc. The case is styled as Javius Ja'Rome Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Woopla, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00489-BJB (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Woopla Gaming -- https://www.wooplagaming.com/ -- is a social gaming development studio that focuses on game design, licensing, and the development of intellectual property for responsible gaming technologies.[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 WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Faces Ellis Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., and WFS EXPRESS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 260702257 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., July 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' misclassification of Plaintiff and the proposed class as workers exempt from overtime compensation under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff and hourly workers often work 40 or more hours per week but Defendants did not pay them one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and hourly workers are not paid for all time that they are required to be at their place of work or on duty before and after their scheduled shifts in weeks when they work more than 40 hours per week, as required by Pennsylvania law, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly worker at Defendants' distribution hub from approximately October 2024 to July 2025. The Defendants are air-cargo logistics companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. Samuel H. Datlof, Esq. Ty Parks, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com sdatlof@wwdlaw.com tparks@wwdlaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com WW FUNCRAFTERS JWA: Iracane Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WW Funcrafters JWA, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Jay Iracane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WW Funcrafters JWA, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00491-CRS (W.D. Ky., July 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. WW Funcrafters JWA, LLC operates a sweepstakes casino.[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 WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Nov. 12, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUDREY ROMALDA ARROYO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-05585-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Pitts entered an order as follows: 1. All formal discovery is stayed until after mediation; 2. If mediation is unsuccessful, the stay will automatically be lifted seven days after the date of mediation; 3. In the event of mediation cancellation, the stay is automatically lifted on the date of cancellation; 4. The time to bring this action to trial and all discovery-related deadlines will be tolled as of the date of this Joint Stipulation. 5. The Parties' motion and discovery schedule be extended as follows: Joinder and other amendments: March 26, 2027 Initial disclosures: April 13, 2027 Fact discovery begins: May 14, 2027 Motion for class certification: Nov. 12, 2027 Fact discovery cutoff: March 13, 2028 Expert reports: May 15, 2028 Trial setting conference: Nov. 13, 2028 Wyndham provides vacation ownership and hospitality services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T242gS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Jovahn Wiggins, Esq. Anthony T. Walker, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com jwiggins@lelawfirm.com awalker@lelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathy A. Le, Esq. Lauren B. Shelby, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 885-1360 E-mail: Kathy.Le@jacksonlewis.com Lauren.Shelby@jacksonlewis.com XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Defends Securities Class and Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ XPLR Infrastructure, LP 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 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class and derivative suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The filing discloses that XPLR, NEE, certain former executives of XPLR, and certain current and former directors of XPLR are defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The lawsuit, filed in July 2025, seeks unspecified damages and alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding XPLR's business model, XPLR distributions, and arrangements relating to Class B noncontrolling members' interests under certain limited liability company agreements to which XPLR and certain of its subsidiaries are or were a party. The alleged class initially included all persons or entities other than the defendants and certain affiliated parties of the defendants named in the lawsuit who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR securities between Sept. 27, 2023, and Jan. 27, 2025. In January 2026, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint expanding the putative class period to include all persons or entities other than the defendants and certain affiliated parties of the defendants named in the lawsuit who purchased or otherwise acquired XPLR securities beginning on May 8, 2023. In March 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which remains pending. The defendants are vigorously defending against the claims in this proceeding. Additionally, the filing reports that XPLR, NEE, certain former executives of XPLR, and certain current and former directors of XPLR are defendants in a purported unitholder derivative action filed in the Southern District of California in August 2025. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making, or causing XPLR to make, false and misleading statements regarding XPLR's business model, distributions, financial arrangements, and equity needs. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and monetary relief, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2025, the Southern District of California issued an order staying proceedings in the derivative action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss phase in the purported federal securities class action lawsuit described above. XPLR Infrastructure, LP, is an infrastructure-focused entity involved in the ownership and operation of energy and related assets. It is affiliated with NextEra Energy and participates in the development and management of large-scale infrastructure projects. XSOLIS INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Shorey Claims --------------------------------------------------------- ROSCOE SHOREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XSOLIS, INC. and LEGACY HEALTH Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00834 (M.D. Tenn., June 18, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for their negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As part of its business practices and to provide services, Defendants collect, store, and maintain patients' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendants. On January 22, 2026, Defendant Xsolis discovered that unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to its computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's private information stored thereon via a phishing attack on January 20, 2026. Due to Defendants' negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. 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. Xsolis, Inc. is a healthcare artificial intelligence and technology company that connects hospitals, health systems, and health plans. Legacy Health is an Oregon nonprofit health system with seven hospital campuses serving Oregon and Southwest Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com XSOLIS INC: Mcleod Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------- JUELLS MCLEOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XSOLIS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00833 (M.D. Tenn., June 18, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant (the putative class members). On June 5, 2026, the Defendant sent a notice of data security incident to Plaintiff and other Class members that certain protected health information and personally identifiable information was taken by unauthorized actors back in January 2026. The data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) gross negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant. Xsolis, Inc. provides AI driven solutions in healthcare management to hospitals, healthcare providers, healthcare systems and health insurance plans/benefits providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Dec. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, et al., v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05739-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order concerning class certification and fact discovery: Event Deadline Deadline for deposition of Lead Dec. 11, 2026 Plaintiffs' class certification expert: Deadline for substantial completion of Oct. 21, 2026 document production: Deadline for the Defendants' opposition to Dec. 23, 2026 Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Defendants to serve expert report in opposition to motion for class certification: Deadline for deposition of the Defendants' Feb. 12, 2027 class certification expert: Deadline for completing fact discovery: March 8, 2027 ZoomInfo is a technology company that offers digital sales and marketing tools to businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tcrCH5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley S. Keller, Esq. Joshua B. Selig, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Facsimile: (206) 622-2522 E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com jselig@byrneskeller.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. Jacqueline R. Meyers, Esq. Stephen C. Boscolo, Esq. Grace T. Harmon, Esq. Kaicheng Yu, Esq. Tayler K. Eynon, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com jmeyers@labaton.com sboscolo@labaton.com gharmon@labaton.com nyu@labaton.com teynon@labaton.com - and - Shawn Busken, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (800) 282-0515 E-mail: Shawn.Busken@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov The Defendant is represented by: Aaron P. Brecher, Esq. James N. Kramer, Esq. Alexander K. Talarides William J. Foley, Esq. Molly McCafferty, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 839-4300 Facsimile: (206) 839-4301 E-mail: abrecher@orrick.com jkramer@orrick.com atalarides@orrick.com wfoley@orrick.com mmccafferty@orrick.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Defends Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in various lawsuits related to alleged exposure by workers and others to asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other hazardous materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Liabilities for environmental remediation and worker exposure claims exclude possible insurance recoveries. It is reasonably possible that our exposure will exceed amounts accrued due to uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and information related to individual sites and worker exposure lawsuits. Total reserves related to environmental remediation and worker exposure claims were $2.19 billion and $2.13 billion as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/7tkpy9vj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.2BB Reserves as of June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc., has received and continues to receive claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos-related exposures that are the subject of related coverage litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Net asbestos paid loss and loss adjustment expenses in the first six months of 2026 and 2025 were $140 million and $103 million, respectively. Net asbestos reserves were $1.22 billion and $1.24 billion as of June 30, 2026 and 2025, respectively. "The Company is defending asbestos-related litigation vigorously and believes that it has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes are uncertain. In this regard, the Company employs dedicated specialists and comprehensive resolution strategies to manage asbestos loss exposure, including settling litigation under appropriate circumstances. Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on future loss development for claims and litigation relating to asbestos claims. Any such development could be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as future changes, if any, in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the Company’s current insurance reserves. In addition, the Company’s estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or changes in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Company’s results of operations in future periods." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/yysj36bj ********* 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 ***