260804.mbx

260804.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 4, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 154 Headlines 1ST CLASS MEDICAL: Class Cert Deadlines Adjourned 3M COMPANY: Class Cert Opening Briefs Due April 21, 2027 ACUSHNET COMPANY: Bishop Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ALCOTT HR: Fails to Safeguard Personal info, Kerrigan Says AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 11 AMERICAN BUILDERS: Fischer Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. APPLIED DIGITAL: Securities Suit Stayed, Derivative Action Tossed ARIA COMMERCIAL: Fails to Fully Conform Pay Practices, Ramos Says BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply BEATRIZ THOMAS: Case Management Order Entered in Abpikar Class Suit BENEFIT COSMETICS: Degove Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in Cal. Super. BEST CAFE: Romero Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff BEVMO! INC: Moreno Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Stores BH SECURITY: Hawkins-Armstrong Sues Over Leaked Private Information BLACK TUX: Bowtell Sues Over Hidden Rental Damage Waiver Fee BO LUCKEY: Response to Class Cert Bid Due August 12 BURGEON LAX: Faces Angel Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. CAL BOWL: Caballero Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Allison Suit Over Unfair Business Practices CALIFORNIA: Charles Appeals Habeas Corpus Petition Court Order CALIFORNIA: Cooper Appeals Habeas Corpus Suit Order to California CG BLACK: Viviani Files Personal Injury Suit in M.D. Fla. CHIME FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Charles Due July 20, 2027 CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Faces Bankston Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. CHROMIUM DENTAL: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. CHUWEN FEI: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 27 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Disparate-Impact Finding Spurs Damages Phase COLLECTORS UNIVERSE: Funk Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices DCW DCW: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Labelers DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Diaz Sues Over Leaked Private Information DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Court Narrows Claims in MgGonigle Suit DOLLAR TREE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Junco Says DRAFTKINGS INC: Chan Sues Over Illegal Sports Gambling Operation EL CINCO: Reyes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular, OT Wages EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stone Files Motion to Compel to M.D. Pa. FISKER INC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Zahaba Due Sept. 2 FLUFFCO LLC: Wise Sues Over Data Privacy Violations FORD OF MONTEBELLO: Sierra Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in Cal. Super. FRANKLIN BSP: Securities Class Suit Filed, Derivative Action Stayed FREEDOM DEBT: Fact Discovery in Garcia Suit Due Jan. 21, 2027 FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss Williams Amended Complaint Tossed GKN DRIVELINE: Bids to Dismiss Ayers Class Suit Tossed GRANOLA INC: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Chamberlain Says GRANT MONEY: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Deadlines GREASE MONKEY: Burbank Suit Removed to E.D. Mich. HADLEY TOWING: Penland Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Towing Employees HAMILTON, OH: Seeks More Time to File Response to Class Notice HEC HOME: Wise Sues Over Data Privacy Violations HIMS & HERS: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Private Info Disclosure HP HOOD: Class Certification Schedule Continued IC SYSTEM: Plaintiff Sanctioned for Failure to Appear at Conference IQ DATA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gerritson Due June 21, 2027 JACK IN THE BOX: Class Cert. Bid in Gessele Suit Due April 1, 2027 JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid in Cossette Due Sept. 11 JEROME'S FURNITURE: Discriminates Against Mobility Impaired Persons JOMASHOP INC: Faces Brownlee Suit Over Unlawful Shipping Fees JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Bid to File FAC Tossed as Moot JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Lucy Seeks Provisional Cert. of Noncitizen Class KAMAR SAMUELS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 28, 2027 LASERSHIP INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Limas Due Feb. 15, 2027 LASERSHIP INC: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Sept. 25 LAWGICAL INSIGHT: Court Excludes Stollman's Testimony LAWGICAL INSIGHT: Mohamad's Bid to Certify Class Tossed LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Class Actions LEXISNEXIS RISK: Kohama Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class LGCY POWER: Dounane Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hellested Says LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing in Riganian Due Jan. 22, 2027 LOS ANGELES, CA: Quezada Suit Seeks Damages From Police Shooting LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Review of Oubre Claim Determinations Rejected LOVINGTON, NM: Cooper Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation LUCKY STRIKE: Installs Website Trackers Without Consent, Lloyd Says LUMEXA IMAGING: Court Consolidates Related Cases MAC DISCOUNT: Case Management Order Entered in Machen Class Suit MACY'S RETAIL: Bid to Compel Further Discovery Response Partly OK'd MAGNITE INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed MARATHON PETROLEUM: Renewed Class Cert Bid Continued to August 24 MASSACHUSETTS: Green Seeks to File Portions of Memo Under Seal MAVA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stiles Alleges MDL 3181: Chevas Sues Over Defective Spinal Cord Stimulator System MEDITERRANIA HOMEOWNERS: Unlawfully Installs ALPR, Scharon Claims MEDTRONIC USA: Pleitez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Healthcare Staff MERCK SHARP: Class Cert. Oral Argument Rescheduled to August 26 MERCURY MANAGEMENT: Certification of Collective Action Sought META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing MIT45 INC: Seeks to Oppose Class Certification Bid by Sept. 30 MOLDEX-METRIC INC: Underpays Facility Technicians, Bertsch Claims MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Dean Sues for Invasion of Privacy MUTUAL TRADING: Underpays Sales Representatives, Kawatoko Claims NCAA: Bid to Exclude Saylor's Testimony Partly OK'd NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Crabill Seeks Unpaid Wages for Room Servers OASIS LEGAL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Gafner's Time-Barred Claims OECONNECTION LLC: Faces Camacho Suit Over Data Security Breach OLIN CORP: IPP's Bid to Seal Portions of Summary Judgment OK'd ORW USA: Acevedo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Stores PATRICK INDUSTRIES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 11, 2027 PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bills for Unusable Memberships, Hightower Says PENNSYLVANIA: Perez-Rivera's Bid to Intervene in Hammond Tossed PHENOMENEX INC: Ahamed Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass PRO GRILL: Fails to Properly Pay Field Technicians, Skelton Says PUTNAM COUNTY, FL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Dec. 21 RAYTHEON BARGAINING: Curry Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply REMARKABLE CAREGIVERS: Faces Mangus Class Suit in Cal. Super. REMINE PLATFORM: Lists & Sells Mobile Numbers, Fransua Suit Says REPUBLIC SERVICES: Parties Seeks Stay of Discovery REVIVAL RUGS: Morris Must Move for Default Judgment by August 7 ROBERT LARSON: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 3 ROBLOX CORP: Extension of Deadline to File Pre-Class Cert Sought ROBLOX CORP: Pre-Class Cert Fact Discovery Extended to August 28 ROYAL APPLIANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Garelick Due Oct. 23 RYAN MORAN: Parties Must Confer to Implement Preliminary Injunction SALVATION ARMY: Dekeese Balks at Defective Eviction Notices SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Dunsmore Gets Final Nod SAZERAC COMPANY: Hernandez Seeks Class Certification SCHWARTZ VAYS: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Warren SCHYLLING INC: Mendoza Files Suit Over Sensory Toys' Hazard Risk SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Hearing Adjournment Sought SERRANO HEALTHCARE: Faces Cole Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. SMM FACILITIES: Mendoza Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. SMOKY ROSE: Court Withdraws Bid to Certify Class SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 25, 2027 SPRINGS REJUVENATION: Sells Illegal Stem Cell Products, Sutton Says SPROUTS FARMERS: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Securities Suit STANLEY BLACK: Class Cert Bid Deadline in Howe Vacated STATE FARM: Seeks to Decertify Class in Pitkin Suit STRADA SERVICES: Sued Over Use of Copper-Clad Steel Conductors SUN LIFE ASSURANCE: Faces Dubin Suit Over Breach of Contract SUN LIFE: Geneset Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action SUN LIFE: Genesett Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Memorandum SUPER CENTER: Jimenez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Meat Cutters SYNOPSYS INC: Court Consolidates Related Cases in N.D. Cal. TOLEDO EDISON: Dismissal of Mikulski 1099-DIV Class Action Affirmed TOUCHSOURCE LLC: Curley Sues Over Leaked Private Information TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mixon Suit Due May 6, 2027 TRINITY DISTRIBUTION: Faces Rivas Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. TRON FOUNDATION: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Order Entered TYSON FOODS: De Roulhac Sues Over Unauthorized Data Collection UDR INC: Uses Algorithmic Devices to Set Rent Levels, Romano Says ULTA BEAUTY: Martineau Sues Over ALPR Surveillance on Retail Stores UNILEVER UNITED: Court Strikes Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal UNIQURE NV: Scocco Securities Class Suit Dismissal Bid Due Sept. 14 UNITED PARCEL: Saecho Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action UNITED STATES: Bid to Appoint Class Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 3, 2027 UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Peralta Suit UNITED STATES: Gontarz Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UNWELL PRODUCTS: Faces Darr Suit Over Mislabeled Beverages UPLEAD LLC: Bid to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order Tossed USA: Birthright Citizenship Under 14th Amendment Upheld in Barbara USAA LIFE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Kaiser Extended to Oct. 5 VANGUARD PARKING: Tehan Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline VARONIS SYSTEMS: Move to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Due Sept. 15 VENEZUELA: Discovery Deadline in Cavara Suit Extended to August 28 VENTURA COUNTY: Paul Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Advances in MDL Driving Data Suits VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Advances in MDL Driving Data Suits VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class and Derivative Suits WALT DISNEY: Duffield Suit Transferred From S.D.N.Y. to C.D. Cal. WEINGART CENTER: Faces Clayborn Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. WELLDYNERX LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hayes Says WM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Deal in Ishak Suit Gets Initial Nod YES COMMUNITIES: Class Settlement in O'Leary Gets Initial Nod ZOETIS INC: Court Dismisses Hartney Class Suit with Prejudice ********* 1ST CLASS MEDICAL: Class Cert Deadlines Adjourned ------------------------------------------------- sIn the class action lawsuit captioned as Radvansky v. 1st Class Medical, Case No. 1:25-cv-03796 (D. Colo., Filed Nov. 24, 2025), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order granting Defendant's unopposed motion to adjourn discovery end date and motion for class certification deadlines sine die pending ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss. The discovery-cutoff and deadlines for the motion for class certification are stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. The parties are ordered to email Chambers within ten (10) days of a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss to schedule a hearing to reset these deadlines as needed if the claims remain pending. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). 1st Class is a distributor of portable oxygen concentrators.[CC] 3M COMPANY: Class Cert Opening Briefs Due April 21, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY AND COUNTY OF BUTTESILVER BOW, et al., v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; LION GROUP INC; FIRE-DEX LLP; MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING LLC; and INNOTEX CORP, Case No. 2:25-cv-00036-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered a scheduling order as follows: Class action certification opening briefs April 21, 2027 including expert reports shall be filed on or before (experts shall be made available for deposition after filing but before opposition on a schedule to be coordinated by the Parties): Class action certification response briefs June 18, 2027 and any accompanying Daubert motions for the Plaintiffs' class certification experts shall be filed on or before (experts shall be made available for deposition after filing but before reply on a schedule to be coordinated by the Parties): Oral Argument on class certification and July 22, 2027 Daubert motions: at 1:30 p.m Fact discovery shall be completed by: July 23, 2027 3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rDtt7b at no extra charge.[CC] ACUSHNET COMPANY: Bishop Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ SAMANTHA BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACUSHNET COMPANY, Defendant, Case 1:26-cv-13464-GAO (D. Mass., July 29, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's practice of sending text messages to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services, violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant' solicitations. The illegal conduct has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, says the suit. The Defendant has caused multiple text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending after she wrote "Stop" to Defendant on March 6, 2026 and Defendant continued to send her text messages on or about March 12, 2026, March 17, 2026, March 23, 2026, March 28, 2026 and April 2, 2026. Acushnet Company Acushnet Company designs and manufactures golf equipment. The Company offers golf balls, clubs, shoes, gloves, outerwear, socks, putters, gear, and accessories, as well as apparel for men, women, and kids. Acushnet serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Campbell, Esq. CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP The Schrafft's Center Power House 529 Main Street, Suite P200 Charlestown, MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 872-8652 Email: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 246 Shore Court Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, FL 33308 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com ALCOTT HR: Fails to Safeguard Personal info, Kerrigan Says ---------------------------------------------------------- KATELYN KERRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALCOTT HR GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04433 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI" and collectively with PII, "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as part of its business practices and to provide services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains customers' and employees' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers and/or employees of Defendant. On February 2025, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information stored thereon. Defendant has not disclosed publicly what threat actor was involved. The Defendant disclosed in its notice letter to impacted individuals that the information included at least names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, US driver's license numbers, financial account numbers, financial account access information, and health information. Alcott delayed noticing affected individuals until around June 15, 2026 -- more than 16 months later -- when Alcott began mailing notice letters to affected individuals. Defendant's severe delay in alerting impacted individuals of the Breach prevented Plaintiff and Class Members from taking earlier actions to protect themselves against fraud and misuse of their information, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, diminution of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and additional damages, 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. Plaintiff Katelyn Kerrigan is an individual domiciled in West Islip, New York, who received a notice letter from the Defendant dated July 15, 2026, informing her that her sensitive personal information had been involved in the Data Breach. Defendant Alcott HR Group LLC is a New York-based company that provides human resource services to client businesses in over 40 states. Defendant's services include payroll and finance, employee benefits, risk management, employee relations, workers compensation and disability, 401(k) retirement program, comprehensive medical insurance, and W2 processing among other services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMSON WINCHESTER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-03040-PA-DMK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order continuing class certification deadlines: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Filing Deadline: September 11, 2026 -- The Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification Filing Deadline: October 9, 2026 -- The Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Class Certification Filing Deadline: October 16, 2026 -- Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: November 9, 2026 American Airlines provides scheduled airline transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YQ7rKf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 323-1684 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAW FIRM 1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 922-1802 Facsimile: (510) 844-7701 E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Kelly S. Wood, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 E-mail: kwood@omm.com AMERICAN BUILDERS: Fischer Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSHUA THOMAS FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO., INC. and DOES 1 through 100, Defendant(s), Case No. 26CV02293, was removed from Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division on July 28, 2026. The Clerk of the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-8293 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges seven causes of action on the part of the Defendant including failure to provide compliant meal Periods, failure to provide compliant Rest Periods, failure to pay all overtime owed/misclassification, failure to maintain payroll records, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, and violations of unfair competition law. Plaintiff Fischer is a resident of California who worked for ABC from January 27, 2020 to November 28, 2024 and again from May 27, 2025 to February 16, 2026. American Builders & Contractors Supply Co., Inc., doing business as ABC Supply Co Inc, wholesales building products. The Company offers siding, windows, exterior and interior building products, tools and related supplies. ABC Supply Co serves clients in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. White, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL S. WHITE 79 E. Daily Drive, #123 Camarillo, CA 93010 Telephone: (310) 739-2927 Email: paul.white@thewhitelawfirm.org APPLIED DIGITAL: Securities Suit Stayed, Derivative Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Digital Corp. 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 29, 2026, that the company and two of its senior executives have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit styled "McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation, et al.," filed in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies. It includes allegations that it overstated the profitability of its Data Center Hosting Business, overstated its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider, and maintained a board of directors that was not independent within the meaning of NASDAQ listing rules. On May 22, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel where on July 22, 2024, it filed an amended complaint, which asserts the same statutory claims based on allegations similar to those in the original complaint. On Sept. 20, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on Nov. 20, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss. On Jan. 3, 2025, the defendants filed their reply in further support of the motion to dismiss. On Sept. 8, 2025, the court issued an order staying the Securities Lawsuit and administratively closing it pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. In addition, on Nov. 15, 2023, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the matter styled "Weich v. Cummins, et al.," in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. It named as defendants certain members of the company's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer, Wesley Cummins, and purports to name the company's then Chief Financial Officer, David Rench, as a defendant. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment based upon allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the company to make materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations, and compliance policies. On Feb. 27, 2024, the derivative plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims as the original complaint. On June 5, 2024, following briefing and argument on the defendants motion to dismiss the Derivative Lawsuit, the court entered an order granting the defendants motion without prejudice and dismissing all claims against all defendants, including the company, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead demand futility as to each of plaintiffs' claims or a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff can seek leave to file an amended complaint but to date has not done so. Applied Digital Corp. is a technology company that designs, develops, and operates next-generation digital infrastructure, including high-performance computing and data center hosting facilities. It focuses on providing scalable, energy-efficient computing solutions for blockchain, artificial intelligence, and other high-intensity computational applications. ARIA COMMERCIAL: Fails to Fully Conform Pay Practices, Ramos Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIDIA RAMOS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIA COMMERCIAL CLEANING SERVICES, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No. 268TCV23208 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for: Failure to pay all minimum wages, Failure to pay all overtime wages, Failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, Failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, Failure to maintain accurate employment records, Failure to pay wages timely during employment, Failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, Failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, Failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint relates that the Defendants failed to fully conform their pay practices to the requirements of the law during the relevant statutory periods. Plaintiff and the other Class Members were not compensated for all hours worked including all hours they were subject to the control of Defendants and/or suffered or permitted to work under the Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Order. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other Class Members have sustained economic damages, including but not limited to unpaid wages and lost interest, in an amount to be established at trial, and they are entitled to recover economic and statutory damages and penalties and other appropriate relief because of Defendants' violations of the Labor Code and Applicable Wage Order, says the suit. The Defendants' practices and policies regarding illegal employee compensation are unlawful and create an entitlement to recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class Members in a civil action for the unpaid amount of minimum wages, liquidated damages, including interest thereon, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit according to Labor Code and Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Lidia Ramos was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee in the County of Los Angeles. Defendant Aria Commercial Cleaning Services offers janitorial service in California. Does 1 to 50 are Defendants with fictitious names. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Hannah Becker, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com hb@melmedlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Telexfree Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file reply in support of their motion for an extension of the pretrial schedule and for leave to file renewed motion for class certification. Leave is warranted because the Defendant's opposition raises numerous new legal arguments, factual assertions, and characterizations that were neither addressed nor anticipated in the Plaintiff's opening memorandum. A reply will assist the Court by addressing the new matters and clarifying the limited procedural issue presently before the Court. In addition, the Defendants devote substantial portions of their oppositions to attacking the anticipated opinions and methodology of the Plaintiff's newly retained expert, Dr. Cameron Freer, notwithstanding that no expert report has yet been served. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BhsAok at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. Melanie A. Porter, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LA WYERS, PLLC 23 Fore st St. Medford, MA 0215 5 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 Facsimile: (702) 983-8673 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us - and - Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55441 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: gmfishein@locklaw.com - and - Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. DARDENO PLLP 424 Broadway Somerville, MA 02145 Telephone: (617) 666-2600 BEATRIZ THOMAS: Case Management Order Entered in Abpikar Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HASSAN ABPIKAR, v. BEATRIZ THOMAS, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02226-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Freeman entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline Last day to request leave to amend the 60 Days from Date pleadings per Fed. R. Civ. P. 15: of this Order Last day to file motion for class N/A certification: Last day for non-expert discovery: Dec. 14, 2026 Last day to disclose expert witnesses: Jan. 14, 2027 Last day to complete expert discovery: May 17, 2027 Last day to hear dispositive motions: Sept. 16, 2027, at 9:00 am. Final pretrial conference: Jan. 13, 2028, at 1:30 pm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rja92x at no extra charge.[CC] BENEFIT COSMETICS: Degove Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANNA DEGOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BENEFIT COSMETICS LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20754 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures, failure to produce requested employment records, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from October 2024 to approximately December 2025. Benefit Cosmetics LLC is a manufacturer of cosmetics, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Jose Maria D. Patino. Jr., Esq. Brian Louis, Esq. Roger Ricardez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com jose.patino@wilshirelawfirm.com brian.louis@wilshirelawfirm.com roger.ricardez@wilshirelawfirm.com BEST CAFE: Romero Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff -------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST CAFE ENTERPRISES LLC and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20792 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, failure to provide proper notice and sick pay wages, failure to provide gratuities, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately February 2023 to April 2026. Best Cafe Enterprises LLC is an American fast-casual restaurant chain, headquartered in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristapor Vartanian, Esq. KV LAW, PC 11400 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (213) 799-3730 Email: kvartanian@kvlawpc.com BEVMO! INC: Moreno Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Stores -------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO MORENO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEVMO! INC., GOBRANDS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21145 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its stores to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its properties. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking areas and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. BevMo! Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator based in California. GoBrands, Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 BH SECURITY: Hawkins-Armstrong Sues Over Leaked Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- STACY HAWKINS-ARMSTRONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BH SECURITY, LLC d/b/a BRINKS HOME, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02505 (N.D. Tex., July 29, 2026) is a class action arising the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information of its consumers including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the PII. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered, says the suit. Plaintiff is a client of the Defendant in Illinois and a victim of the data breach. Defendant BH Security LLC is a smart home technology and security provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camile Alvarez, 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: calvarez@straussborrelli.com BLACK TUX: Bowtell Sues Over Hidden Rental Damage Waiver Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM BOWTELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BLACK TUX, LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21116 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition, false advertising, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and quasi-contract. The case arises from the Defendant's engagement in a drip pricing practice on its website. According to the complaint, the Defendant does not include a mandatory "Rental Damage Waiver" fee on the initial display of rental prices or when the consumer first adds the item to the cart on its website. Instead, it waits until checkout to add this hidden fee. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. The Black Tux, LLC is a formalwear company, with its principal place of business in Gardena, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Day, Esq. Calvin Bryne, Esq. DAY BRYNE & MCINTOSH 129 W. Wilson Street, Suite 105 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Telephone: (949) 650-2827 Facsimile: (949) 722-1137 Email: jack@dbm.law calvin@dbm.law BO LUCKEY: Response to Class Cert Bid Due August 12 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY BLACK, et al., v. LUCKEY, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00377-DPJ-MTP (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Michael T. Parker entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time and amendment to briefing schedule: The defendants responsive pleading in this action shall be due on August 12, 2026. The plaintiffs' response shall be due on September 16, 2026, and defendants' reply thereto shall be due on October 12, 2026. The Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be due on August 12, 2026, and plaintiffs' reply shall be due on September 16, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xGwGv1 at no extra charge.[CC] BURGEON LAX: Faces Angel Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA ANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURGEON LAX GATEWAY LLC; BURGEON HOTEL GROUP CORPORATION; BURGEON SAN GABRIEL MANAGEMENT LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20684 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures, failure to produce requested employment records, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a housekeeper at a hotel in California from approximately February 2024 to approximately February 2026. Burgeon Lax Gateway LLC is a hotel owner and operator in California. Burgeon Hotel Group Corporation is a hotel owner and operator in California. Burgeon San Gabriel Management LLC is a hotel owner and operator in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Diego Aviles, Esq. Harry Erganyan, Esq. Mariam Nazaretyan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com diego.aviles@wilshirelawfirm.com harry.erganyan@wilshirelawfirm.com mariam.nazaretyan@wilshirelawfirm.com CAL BOWL: Caballero Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARYANNE CABALLERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAL BOWL ENTERPRISES, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20798 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, failure to pay for all hours worked, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Cal Bowl Enterprises, LLC is an owner and operator of a family entertainment center in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123, Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Allison Suit Over Unfair Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELICA ALLISON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC, HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC., HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC, HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., OPAL FOODS, LLC, URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC., and EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00702 (W.D. Wis., July 30, 2026) is an antitrust class action arising from the anticompetitive behavior of the Defendants as egg producers in the United States. According to the complaint, the producers manipulate and inflate the price of conventional and cage-free shell eggs for approximately four years starting at least on January 1, 2022. The Defendants manufactured, sold, and shipped Commodity Shell Eggs in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce, which included sales of eggs in this district, advertisement of eggs in media in this District, and employment of personnel in this district, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and the proposed classes purchased Commodity Shell Eggs at prices inflated by the actions of the defendants and their co-conspirators. Cal-Maine is one of the largest egg producers in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Naveed Abaie, Esq. Adrian J. Buonanoce, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone (818) 788-8300 Email: bpouya@pwfirm.com dwarshaw@pwfirm.com nabaie@pwfirm.com abuonanoce@pwfirm.com - and - Neil Swartzberg, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 555 Montgomery St., Suite 1205 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone (415) 433-9000 Email: nswartzberg@pwfirm.com - and - Brian S. Pafundi, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Email: bpafundi@pwfirm.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: burt@whafh.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 Email: manifold@whafh.com - and - Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. Kaki J. Johnson, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (213) 462-4772 Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com kjohnson@bathaeedunne.com - and - Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Ave, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 208-7337 Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com - and - Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Nathan M. Kuenzi, Esq. BURNS BAIR LLP 610 E. Doty Street, Suite 600 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone:(608) 286-2302 Email: jbair@burnsbair.com nkuenzi@burnsbair.com - and - Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. Douglas A. Millen, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 Email: rwozniak@jjlmlaw.com dmillen@jjlmlaw.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 243-6335 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 Email: kjustice@jjlmlaw.com - and- Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. Hans D. Hodes, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com hhodes@midwest-law.com - and - Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 1050 30th St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 Email: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com CALIFORNIA: Charles Appeals Habeas Corpus Petition Court Order -------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN CURTIS CHARLES filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit entitled In re Ivan Curtis Charles on Habeas Corpus, Case No. 17247, in the Solano County Superior Court. On July 13, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he contends he is entitled to relief under the Racial Justice Act of 2020. On July 15, 2026, the Court entered an Order denying the petition. The Court finds that the petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel or the disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act. The petitioner fails to allege particularized facts that support his claims based on alleged exhibitions of racial bias or that support his claim that petitioner was charged, convicted, or sentenced in a more severe manner than similarly situated individuals of other races, ethnicities, or national origins. The appellate case is styled as In re Ivan Curtis Charles on Habeas Corpus, Case No. A176999, in the First Appellate District of California Court of Appeal, filed on July 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner IVAN CURTIS CHARLES appears pro se. Defendant-Respondent THE PEOPLE is represented by: Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 CALIFORNIA: Cooper Appeals Habeas Corpus Suit Order to California ----------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER OZELL COOPER filed an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit captioned as In re Walter Ozell Cooper on Habeas Corpus, Case No. HC1501891, in the Alameda County Superior Court. On July 20, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he contends he is entitled to relief and seeks appointment of counsel and disclosure of discovery under the Racial Justice Act of 2020. On July 23, 2026, the Court entered an Order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the requests for appointment of counsel and discovery. The Court finds that the Petitioner provides no support for his claim that the judge, district attorney, or jury was biased. Nor does the Petitioner adequately describe or attach relevant supporting documentary evidence concerning his claims such as statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence that relates to charging, convictions, or sentencing. Thus, Petitioner "has not established a prima facie showing" under the Racial Justice Act. The appellate case is styled as In re Walter Ozell Cooper on Habeas Corpus, Case No. A177054, in the First Appellate District of California Court of Appeal, filed on July 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner WALTER OZELL COOPER appears pro se. Defendant-Respondent THE PEOPLE is represented by: Office of the Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 CG BLACK: Viviani Files Personal Injury Suit in M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CG Black Financial Services Inc. The case is captioned as CHARLES VIVIANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CG BLACK FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-01881-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla., June 29, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for personal injury claims. CG Black Financial Services Inc. is a financial services provider in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Leonard Kahn, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN PC 3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 261-7711 Email: jkahn@bfvlaw.com - and - Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com CHIME FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Charles Due July 20, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles v. Chime Financial Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01361-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Aug. 10, 2026 Deadline for fact discovery requests: Mar. 22, 2027 Fact discovery must be completed by: May 21, 2027 The Plaintiff's motion for class July 20, 2027 certification: The Defendant's response to the Sept. 20, 2027 Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of Nov. 2, 2027 class certification: If this case settles, counsel shall notify Courtroom Deputy Diyana Staples via email at KKEcrd@wawd.uscourts.gov as soon as possible. Pursuant to LCR 11(b), an attorney who fails to give the courtroom deputy prompt notice of settlement may be subject to sanctions. Chime is a financial technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NseVfq at no extra charge.[CC] CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Faces Bankston Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL BANKSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21133 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to indemnify business expenses, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately March 2024 through April 7, 2026. Chipotle Services, LLC is a restaurant operator in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com CHROMIUM DENTAL: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHROMIUM DENTAL II LLC, D & M DENTAL LABORATORY INC., LABS DENTAL INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21090 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California. Chromium Dental II LLC is a dental services provider in California. D & M Dental Laboratory Inc. is a dental services provider in California. Labs Dental Inc. is a dental services provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. YOON LAW, APC 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 102 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 CHUWEN FEI: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 27 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANG, et al., v. FEI, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05055-RA-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Parker entered an order setting amended discovery schedule as follows: -- Fact discovery and affirmative expert reports are now due Nov. 27, 2026; -- Rebuttal expert reports are now due Feb. 1, 2027; and -- Expert discovery is due by March 29, 2027. The briefing schedule for the motion for class certification is modified as follows. -- The Plaintiffs' motion is due Aug. 27, 2026; opposition is due Oct. 12, 2026; reply is due Oct. 22, 2026. -- A discovery conference is scheduled for Aug. 18, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. On July 16, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a letter motion seeking a six-month extension of the discovery deadlines in this action. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V2GJ9e at no extra charge.[CC] COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Disparate-Impact Finding Spurs Damages Phase ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cognizant Technology Solutions 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 29, 2026, that on Dec. 5, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California awarded plaintiffs $16 million in interim attorneys' fees and costs, and separately found in plaintiffs' favor on their claim that Cognizant policies had a disparate impact on non-South Asian and non-Indian employees in view of the same evidence presented at the retrial. In addition to trials on certain non-class claims, the case will now proceed to the second phase to determine individualized liability and damages, if any, for each class member. As a result of the verdict, each non-South Asian and non-Indian class member who pursues claims in the second phase will be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that all termination decisions were discriminatory and to the possibility of recovering punitive damages if they prevail. The lawsuit alleged discrimination by Cognizant against non-South Asian and non-Indian individuals in its U.S. hiring and termination practices since September 2013. It describes plaintiffs' efforts to certify hiring and termination classes, the court's partial certification of a narrower bench terminations class, Cognizant's unsuccessful attempt to appeal that certification to the Ninth Circuit, and the subsequent class action jury trial that ended in a mistrial. On May 13, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court certify the case as a class action for two putative classes of plaintiffs. These proposed classes consisted of (1) all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who applied to Cognizant in the U.S. and were not hired since September 2013 (the hiring class) and (2) all individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who have been terminated in the U.S. since September 2013 (the terminations class). Cognizant opposed the motion for class certification. On Oct. 27, 2022, the court denied certification for both the hiring class and the terminations class. However, the court granted certification for a subset of the terminations class that was limited to approximately 2,300 former employees whose employment had been terminated from the bench, a designation for employees who are not allocated to an active project. On Nov. 10, 2022, Cognizant filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to appeal the class certification order as to this bench-terminations class. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition on Jan. 26, 2023. From June 13, 2023 to June 26, 2023, the court held a class action jury trial on the first phase of plaintiffs' Section 1981 claim and Title VII disparate treatment claim. The questions presented at trial were whether Cognizant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against non-South Asian and non-Indian employees with respect to bench terminations, and, if so, whether punitive damages are available for class members who prevail on their claims. The jury deadlocked on these issues, and the court declared a mistrial. The case proceeded to a retrial on Sept. 24, 2024, and on Oct. 4, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. is a global professional services and technology company that provides consulting, information technology, and outsourcing services across industries. It offers digital transformation solutions that help clients modernize technology, reimagine processes, and improve business performance. COLLECTORS UNIVERSE: Funk Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Funk, for himself and for similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., d/b/a PROFESSIONAL SPORTS AUTHENTICATOR and COLLECTORS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-2933 (D. Md., July 28, 2026) is a class action complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages arising from the fraudulent grading practices and deceptive fee model of Professional Sports Authenticator and the role of Collectors Holdings in making both profitable at scale. According to the complaint, the Defendants exploited their dominant position in the multi-billion-dollar trading-card market through fraudulent and deceptive practices. The Defendants' coordinated representations and omissions directly induced consumers to act and saturated the trading-card market with the materially false or incomplete understanding that PSA's Grading Credential was impartial, objective, independent, criteria-based, and reliable, says the suit. Plaintiff Funk is a resident of Maryland who submitted his trading cards to PSA for grading services through a Card Grading Intermediary. Defendant Collectors Universe, Inc. provides authentication and grading services. The Company offers its services to dealers and collectors of coins, sports cards, autographs, stamps, and vintage US currency notes and to sellers and purchasers of diamonds, and other assets. Collectors Universe serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Bundy III, Esq. ADVOCARE LEGAL GROUP A Member of Zealous Advocates 8115 Maple Lawn Boulevard, Suite 275 Fulton, MD 20789 Telephone: (240) 500-3595 Facsimile: (240) 657-1109 Email: Thomas.Bundy@Z-Advocates.com - and - Jeremy Eldridge, Esq. Adam Crandell, Esq. ELDRIDGE CRANDELL LLC A Member of Zealous Advocates One South Street, Suite 2150 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (443) 559-4384 Facsimile: (443) 288-6633 Email: Jeremy.Eldridge@Z-Advocates.com Adam.Crandell@Z-Advocates.com - and - Andrew D. Herman, Esq. Stanley Brand, Esq. THE HERMAN LAW FIRM LLC A Member of Zealous Advocates 1775 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 350-3397 Email: Andrew.Herman@Z-Advocates.com Stan.Brand@Z-Advocates.com DCW DCW: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Labelers -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCW DCW INC.; DCW LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21129 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest periods, failure to indemnify necessary expenditures, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation of employment, and unfair and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt labeler from approximately November 2024 to approximately December 2025. DCW DCW Inc. is a provider of freight transportation arrangement, warehousing, and storage services in California. DCW Logistics Services, Inc. is a private support and transport company located in Torrance, 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 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Diaz Sues Over Leaked Private Information -------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE M. DIAZ, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DEVEREUX FOUNDATION D/B/ DEVEREUX ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05356 (E.D. Pa., July 30, 2026) is a class action arising from the failure of the Defendant to protect personally identifiable information and protected health information of its employees, clients and donors, including Plaintiff. The Defendant identified an unauthorized third party accessed of its systems between November 6, 2025, and November 9, 2025 which copied files containing PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class Members. After the data Breach occurred, the Defendant began sending notice of data breach letters to the victims, says the suit. Plaintiff Diaz is a former employee of Devereux Foundation, who provided her private information as part of her employment. Devereux Foundation is a national nonprofit behavioral healthcare organization based in Villanova, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Court Narrows Claims in MgGonigle Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, V. DICKEY'S BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01062-RDA-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Alston Jr., entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss: The Motion is granted insofar as the treble damages are dismissed. The Motion is otherwise denied; and it is further ordered that the Plaintiff must file any Amended Complaint within 14 days of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If the Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint by that date, the Court will assume that Plaintiff is foregoing, any claims to treble damages. Without alleging more than conclusory statements that the Defendant knew, or should have known, that Plaintiffs phone number was on the DNC Registry, Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Defendant willfully and knowingly violated the TCPA. Because Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged treble damages, the Court will dismiss the claim for treble damages. Although Defendant cites Rules 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) generally in its Motion, Defendant does not specify which Rule 23(a) or (b) requirement is not established. Thus, in the face of such recent authority from the Fourth Circuit and the disfavored nature of a motion to strike class allegations at this early stage, Defendant's generalized arguments are unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Motion is denied in this regard. The action arises out of Plaintiff Andrew James McGonigle's allegations that he received unsolicited texts promoting Defendant Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dickey's is an American family-owned barbecue restaurant chain based in Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lYGfrH at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR TREE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Junco Says ------------------------------------------------------ ARIANA JUNCO and CLAUDIA LOPEZ, individually And on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08687 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2026) is a civil action for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid straight-time wages, unlawful retaliation, and denial of earned paid leave, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Illinois Minimum Wage Law; the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act; the Illinois Paid Leave for All Workers Act, and the Chicago Paid Leave Ordinance. The complaint relates that although Junco regularly worked between approximately 50 and 60 hour per week, Defendant paid her for only approximately 30 to 40 hours per week regularly and did not pay her overtime compensation at one and one-half times her regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL. At one point, Junco worked an entire shift, and the wages were paid to a different employee. After Junco complained about these pay practices to Defendant's management, Defendant retaliated against her, including by drastically cutting her hours and ultimately terminating her employment on a pretextual basis, in violation of the FLSA's anti-retaliation provisions. Plaintiff Lopez discovered that Defendant deleted paid sick and/or paid leave time that she had earned and accrued during her employment with Defendant, and deprived her of wages and benefits to which she was legally entitled. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the form of unpaid overtime compensation, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial; liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime compensation; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiffs, Ariana Junco and Claudia Lopez was employed as Assistant Managers by the Defendant. Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a national retail chain that operates a store in Chicago, Illinois, among other locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Lubin, Esq. 8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: 773 954 2608 E-mail: Jonathan@lubinlegal.com - and - Perry Perelman, Esq. MIGDAL LAW GROUP 570 Lake Cook Road Suite 530 Deerfield, IL 60015 E-mail: service@migdallawgroup.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Chan Sues Over Illegal Sports Gambling Operation ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC. and GUS III LLC, Defendants, Case No.: 1:26-cv-13442 (July 28, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover wagers lost to illegal sports gambling operation in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, DraftKings deploys Predictions, an app-based predictions market, in U.S. states that prohibit online sports betting to evade gambling laws, regulations, and prohibitions, and sells consumers sports bets that are functionally identical to the wagers in its regulated sportsbook. These wagers are identical in substance, identical in risk, and offered through the very same super app. DraftKings' sports predictions are sports bets masquerading as event contracts. By branding the product as "trading" rather than betting, DraftKings misleads consumers into believing the activity is lawful and safe, says the suit. Plaintiff Chan is a resident of California, who signed up for Predictions through the DraftKings app. DraftKings owns and operates an online sports betting platform, DraftKings Sportsbook and Predictions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq. Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq. One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 Email: kdonovanmaher@bermantabacco.com sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com - and - Aaron Schwartz, Esq. Clara Owens, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: aschwartz@kaplanfox.com cowens@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, 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 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com spintar@kaplanfox.com EL CINCO: Reyes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular, OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- GUILLERMO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL CINCO CORP., EL TRIO CORP., and DEYANIRA SANTAMARIA a/k/a DEYANIRA SANTAMARIA LUNA, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04649 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay additional wage for work that exceeded ten hours a day and failed to pay Plaintiff the weekly restaurant salary he earned during three consecutive workweeks in April 2026. The Plaintiff was never told, and never learned, what his hourly rate of pay was or how many hours of work his weekly salary was intended to cover, says the suit. Plaintiff Reyes was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee with a fixed weekly salary of $980 plus $50 for each bar shift regardless of the number of hours he actually worked. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant, bar, and lounge in Queens, New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Facsimile: (212) 203-9115 EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stone Files Motion to Compel to M.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- THERESA STONE, et al. filed a motion to compel Non-Party Respondent Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency ("PHEAA") to comply with their Rule 45 subpoena issued on April 15, 2026 in the lawsuit captioned as THERESA STONE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-mc-00631-KMN (M.D. Pa., June 29, 2026). The suit arises from Case No. 2:24-cv-00195 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Equifax Information Services LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Goldberg, Esq. Matthew S. Decker, Esq. PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, PC One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 3150 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 817-7596 Facsimile: (201) 488-5556 Email: sgoldberg@pashmanstein.com - and - George F. Carpinello, Esq. Adam R. Shaw, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 S. Pearl St., 12th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434-0600 Facsimile: (518) 434-0665 Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com ashaw@bsfllp.com - and - George Haines, Esq. Gerardo Avalos, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRM 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 880-5554 Facsimile: (702) 967-6666 Email: info@freedomlegalteam.com - and - Scott C. Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com FISKER INC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Zahaba Due Sept. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED A. ZAHABI, v. FISKER INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09976-FLA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order stipulation regarding class certification scheduling: 1. The Plaintiff's opening class certification motion and supporting papers due Sept. 2, 2026; 2. The Defendants' response or opposition to class certification due Nov. 4, 2026; 3. Any reply in support of class certification due Dec. 16, 2026; And 4. The Parties may seek modification of this schedule for good cause shown. Fisker was an American electric vehicle manufacturer founded in 2016. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b3wJ6T at no extra charge.[CC] FLUFFCO LLC: Wise Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------- MAXWELL WISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLUFFCO, LLC dba FLUFF.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV21567 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant and its affiliate marketing partners bombard Californians with spam disguised as official communication using "Amazon Prime Day" and "Urban Outfitter" branding as bait. The illegal spam misdirects recipients to the Defendant's website, where the Defendant secretly installs tracking pixels on each visitor's device to surveil and profit from their journey across the Internet, says the suit. Fluffco, LLC specializes in providing hotel-quality pillows, comforters, robes, and towels at significantly reduced prices, making luxury accessible for home use. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste 800 Newport Place Drive, Ste 800 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com FORD OF MONTEBELLO: Sierra Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE FONSECA SIERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD OF MONTEBELLO, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20700 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures, failure to produce requested employment records, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately July 2000 to June 2026. Ford of Montebello, Inc. is an automobile dealer in Montebello, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Christina M. Le, Esq. Michael T. Suh, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com christina.le@wilshirelawfirm.com michael.suh@wilshirelawfirm.com FRANKLIN BSP: Securities Class Suit Filed, Derivative Action Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin BSP Realty Trust, 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 29, 2026, that, on Feb. 26, 2026, the company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned "Robert Moses v. Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc., et al." It asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, on May 8, 2026, the company and its officers and directors were named as defendants in a related derivative shareholder complaint filed in the same court by John E. Traina, derivatively on behalf of Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. against the same defendants. It alleges that the board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by allowing management to make the allegedly false statements at issue in the securities class action. At present, the derivative action has been stayed by the court. Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust focused on originating, acquiring, and managing a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate debt investments. It seeks to provide attractive risk-adjusted returns to its shareholders through income generation and capital preservation. FREEDOM DEBT: Fact Discovery in Garcia Suit Due Jan. 21, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BIANCA GARCIA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-03077-FMO-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered the following scheduling order: All fact discovery shall be completed no later than January 21, 2027. The court does not bifurcate discovery. All expert discovery shall be completed by April 5, 2027. The parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no later than February 4, 2027. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later than March 4, 2027. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than January 21, 2027. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 5, 2027, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. Freedom Debt is a U.S. debt settlement company founded in 2002. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HwjlyH at no extra charge.[CC] FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss Williams Amended Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brittany Williams, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-12599-JDA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Austin entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404, the action is nevertheless transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) [Doc. 24] is denied without prejudice and with leave to re-file upon transfer. The Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant as to Plaintiff’s individual claims. The Court need not decide at this stage whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant as to the putative out-of-state absent class members' claims. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2025, asserting causes of action for (1) Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA) on behalf of Plaintiff and a National Do Not Call Registry, and (2) Defendant's alleged violation of section 37-21-70 of the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act, on behalf of Plaintiff and a "SCTPPA Class." The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following proposed classes: National DNC Class: All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of Defendant encouraging the purchase [of] Defendant’s goods or services, (3) within a 12-month period (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial. SCTPPA Class: All persons with a South Carolina area code to whom (a) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial (b) from or on behalf of the Defendant (c) placed at least one telephone solicitation to a number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Defendant is a privately owned, non-bank mortgage company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BSVDCn at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Bids to Dismiss Ayers Class Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-CV-581 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order denying the Defendant's motions to dismiss and alternatively to sever for separate trials. The plaintiffs' motions to consolidate, Ayers and Carson are granted in part as follows: a. In Ayers, the claims of plaintiffs Ayers and Cawthon will be consolidated for trial, to begin September 15, 2026. b. In Carson, the claims of plaintiffs Carson and Stark will be consolidated for trial, to begin immediately upon the conclusion of the trial in Ayers, on or about September 17, 2026. c. The Court will set detailed trial preparation schedules by separate order as time permits, consistent with and supplementing the schedule and deadlines set in open court at a hearing on July 20, 2026. The plaintiffs' motion to consolidate, Ayers, and Carson, are otherwise denied in part and the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate, Ferges, is denied, all without prejudice to consolidation after the first two trials are completed. The pre-2020 claims of the 11 remaining plaintiffs are logically related and involve at least some common questions of law and fact, so they are properly joined in each of these cases. And resolution of those common questions would promote judicial economy without unduly prejudicing GKN's ability to put on individualized defenses or confusing the jury, so some degree of consolidation for trial is appropriate. But the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they will be able to try these cases in a way that would allow a single jury to resolve all of the pre-2020 claims without undue confusion. Even consolidation of the claims of the plaintiffs into three trials is likely to cause trial management problems. GKN's motions to sever and for separate trials will be denied. The plaintiffs' motions for consolidation will be granted in part, to the extent that the pre-2020 claims of Mr. Ayers and Mr. Cawthon will be set for consolidated trial, the pre-2020 claims of Mr. Carson and Mr. Stark will be set for separate consolidated trial, and further consolidation of the remaining claims will be a likely possibility. In these three related wage and hour cases, the Court previously denied class and collective certification Only the claims of the 11 named plaintiffs remain for trial. The parties disagree about the best course for trying those claims. The plaintiffs propose consolidation of the pre-2020 claims for a single trial, or, as a late breaking alternative, one trial for each set of plaintiffs in each of the three cases, whereas the defendant proposes dismissing all but the first named plaintiff in each case as misjoined or, alternatively, severing the individual cases for 11 separate trials. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ss0XLR at no extra charge.[CC] GRANOLA INC: Wiretaps Users' Private Info, Chamberlain Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TARRA CHAMBERLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANOLA, INC. AND GRANOLA LABS LTD. Defendants, Case No.: 3:26-cv-07926 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2026) is a class action over Granola's use of intercepted communications to train AI models. According to the complaint, Granola's AI notetaking software surreptitiously recorded and transcribed private communications during virtual meetings without consent of the Plaintiff and Class Members, leaving non-users unable to prevent their data from being used for AI model training. Plaintiff Chamberlain frequently joins Microsoft Teams and Zoom meetings as part of her personal and professional life. Granola, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company offers AI note pad for people in back to back meetings. Granola serves in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law wjonckheer@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com GRANT MONEY: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN REVELL, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. GRANT MONEY, LLC; KICKOFF INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05994-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: 1. The briefing schedule and hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be vacated pending the Ninth Circuit's mandate. 2. The parties shall propose a briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in their Joint Case Management Statement. On November 7, 2025, the Court entered an Order staying this case "pending resolution of Defendants' appeal in the Ninth Circuit." Briefing in the appeal concluded on June 22, 2026. The appeal is being considered for an upcoming oral argument to take place in September, October, or November of 2026. Oral argument has not been set since the parties last filed their Joint Case Management Statement on June 11, 2026. Grant Money operates the Grant Cash Advance app, an earned wage access platform that provides short-term cash advances. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nnphH8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. Courtney Ross Brown CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: s(501) 312-8505 E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com cbrown@cbplaw.com - and - Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. Jacob Phillips, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC 2277 Lee Rd., Ste. B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com jacob@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Elliot Conn, Esq. CONN LAW, PC 100 Bush Street, Suite 1580 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 417-2780 Facsimile: (415) 358-4941 E-mail: elliot@connlawpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Previn, Esq. Sean D. Unger, Esq. Kelsey R. McQuilkin, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 318-6000 Facsimile: (212) 319-4090 E-mail: matthewprevin@paulhastings.com seanunger@paulhastings.com kelseymcquilkin@paulhastings.com GREASE MONKEY: Burbank Suit Removed to E.D. Mich. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled REBECCA BURBANK and DIANE VAN TREECK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREASE MONKEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-010814-CZ, was removed from the Wayne County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on July 28, 2026. The Clerk of the Eastern District of Michigan assigned to Case 2:26-cv-12590-JJCG-DRG the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant GMI performed services for, and collected payments from, thousands of customers at dozens of unregistered Uncle Ed's oil shoppe facilities in Michigan during the Class Period for motor vehicle repair or maintenance services for six years, which violated the Michigan Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act. Plaintiffs Burbank and Van Treeck have paid Defendant for oil change and related motor vehicle services performed on their motor vehicles on frequent and numerous occasions within the Class period. Grease Monkey International, LLC provides automotive services. The Company offers oil change, brake, and battery services for vehicles. Grease Monkey International LL serves vehicle owners seeking maintenance and repair services throughout the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Julia G. Prescott, Esq. COULSON P.C. 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700 Detroit, Michigan 48207 Telephone: (313) 644-2685 Email: nick@CoulsonPC.com jprescott@CoulsonPC.com HADLEY TOWING: Penland Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Towing Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL PENLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HADLEY TOWING EQUIPMENT, INC., COURTESY TRANSPORT & TOWING, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21121 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including willful misclassification, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal break, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest break, failure to pay all wages owed in a timely manner, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide complete wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to provide personnel records, failure to provide time and wage records, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California. Hadley Towing Equipment, Inc. is a towing services provider in California. Courtesy Transport & Towing, Inc. is a towing services provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Jason Kyle Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com jasonm@potterhandy.com HAMILTON, OH: Seeks More Time to File Response to Class Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN MCCARLEY, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF HAMILTON, Case No. 1:25-cv-00348-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file its Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Determination on Similarly Situated Individuals for Purposes of Sending Court-Authorized Notice to Potential Plaintiffs by 21 days, up to and including August 18, 2026. Hamilton is a city in Butler County, Ohio, United States, and its county seat. It is 20 miles north of Cincinnati along the Great Miami River. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dEp55t at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Robert D. Shank, Esq. Jasmine C. Corrie Jones, Esq. FBT Gibbons LLP 3300 Great American Tower 301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3300 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-6437 Facsimile: (513) 651-6981 E-mail: rshank@fbtgibbons.com jjones@fbtgibbons.com HEC HOME: Wise Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------ MAXWELL WISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEC HOME ESSENTIALS, INC. dba WUZUTECH.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV21577 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant and its affiliate marketing partners bombard Californians with spam disguised as official communication using "Amazon Prime Day" and "Urban Outfitter" branding as bait. The illegal spam misdirects recipients to the Defendant's website, where the Defendant secretly installs tracking pixels on each visitor's device to surveil and profit from their journey across the Internet, says the suit. HEC Home Essentials, Inc. sells consumer tech gadgets, smart home appliances, and drop-shipped merchandise through various targeted brand landing pages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste 800 Newport Place Drive, Ste 800 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com HIMS & HERS: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Private Info Disclosure --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE and JOHN DOE II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.: 3:26-cv-07941, (N.D. Cal.; July 30, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's conduct of allowing third parties to intercept sensitive personal information of its consumers, including Plaintiffs, shared through its Hims & Hers Platform. According to the complaint, the Defendant allowed third parties to disclose and intercept personal information using the tracking technology incorporated on the Platform for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes without the consent of the Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiffs are residents of California who used the Hims & Hers Platform to obtain healthcare services and/or prescriptions. Hims & Hers operates a consumer-facing health and wellness platform through which consumers can connect to licensed healthcare professionals, receive telehealth services prescription health and wellness products, and tailored treatment plans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law wjonckheer@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Patricia Zapata Latzer, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com platzer@lowey.com HP HOOD: Class Certification Schedule Continued ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RUBIO, v. HP HOOD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03621-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claire entered an order: -- granting the plaintiff's motion to amend, and -- granting the defendant's request for a continuance of the class certification schedule. The current schedule for class certification is vacated. The parties are ordered to submit a revised proposed schedule within 14 days of this order. Amendment at this juncture, before the defendant has responded to the motion for class certification and certainly before any class has been certified, is sufficiently early in a case of this type to avoid substantial prejudice. The fact that all prior extensions of time have been stipulated undermines defendant's argument that time is of the essence, as does the fact that defendant is the party asking for the current class certification deadline to be continued. Considering the stage and progress of this case, any prejudice to the defendant is not substantial enough to overcome the general leniency with which the court is required to apply to a request to amend the complaint. Accordingly, leave to amend will be granted. In the First Amended Complaint plaintiff sought to certify the following: Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the defendants at any time from Aug. 30, 2022, to the filing of this complaint" Shift Differential Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees who were paid "Nite Dif SM" and "Nite Dif SM" wages or were subjects to Defendants policies by Defendants at any time from four years prior to the filing of this complaint, through the present." The proposed Second Amended Complaint changed the class definition to include: "All non-exempt employees California employees who were provided wage statements that did not identify the rate of pay and corresponding hours worked for certain hourly wages, including, but not limited to "Premium OT and Additional Pay", at any time from Nov. 12, 2023, through the present ("Wage Statement Class"); and "All non-exempt California employees who were paid non-discretionary remuneration including, but not limited to, shift differential wages covering any period in which sick pay or PTO wages were paid to the employee by Defendant and whose employment ended, either voluntarily or involuntarily, at any time during the period of time from Aug. 30, 2022, through the present ("Sick Pay Class")." This wage-and-hour action, brought partly pursuant to California's Private Attorney General's Act ("PAGA"), was removed from state court on Dec. 19, 2024. HP Hood is an American dairy company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8IGfW5 at no extra charge.[CC] IC SYSTEM: Plaintiff Sanctioned for Failure to Appear at Conference ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03229-AJB-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Torres entered an order sanctioning the Plaintiff for failure to appear at early neutral evaluation conference. 1. The Court discharges the June 17, 2026, Order to Show Cause. 2. The Court sanctions Plaintiff Joe Esquivel in the amount of $50.00 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) and Local Rule 83.1. a. On or before September 8, 2026, the Plaintiff shall submit payment in the amount of $50.00 as a court fine to the Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified fund of the United States Treasury via a check made payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." b. The Plaintiff shall file proof of payment within five days of payment. In sum, based on the Plaintiff's responses to the OSC and the representations made at the OSC hearing, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not show cause for his failure both appear at the June 17, 2026, ENE and comply with the Court's ENE/CMC Order. In terms of the appropriate sanction, the Court concludes that a court fine of $50.00 is appropriate. While the Court is sensitive to Plaintiff's economic circumstances, Plaintiff made no effort to attend the ENE or timely seek relief, failed to explain why he did not seek relief, and then seemingly sought to avoid sanctions by dismissing this action. Under these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the modest fine ordered herein is necessary and proper. The Defendant is an Accounts Receivable Management provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VOVYzT at no extra charge.[CC] IQ DATA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gerritson Due June 21, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUISA GERRITSON II, v. IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01739-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered an scheduling order: Event Date Deadline to join additional parties: Sept. 18, 2026 Deadline for expert witness disclosure/ April 21, 2027 reports under FRCP 26(a)(2): Deadline to complete discovery on class May 21, 2027 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion June 21, 2027 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file July 12, 2027 opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply July 19, 2027 to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Defendant is a legitimate Washington-based debt collector specializing in multi-family residential properties. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xI258H at no extra charge.[CC] JACK IN THE BOX: Class Cert. Bid in Gessele Suit Due April 1, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gessele, et al., v. Jack In The Box Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01092 (D. Or., Filed July 9, 2014), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order adoptimg the case schedule outlined in the parties' post-appeal joint status report as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' motion to partially reinstate jury verdict/establish facts under issue preclusion/reopen discovery for time records is due not later than September 30, 2026; (2) Defendant's motion to bifurcate case and stay the meal period claims pending Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Athena v. Pelican Brewing (S072698), and will also address issues related to the current appellate bond not later than September 30, 2026; (3) Simultaneous responses will be due not later than October 21, 2026; (4) Simultaneous replies will be due not later than November 23, 2026; (5) Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due not later than April 1, 2027; (6) Defendant's response will be due not later than April 22, 2027; (7) Plaintiffs' Reply will be due not later than May 13, 2027; (8) Dispositive motions are due not later than August 11, 2027; (9) Responses to dispositive motions are due by Sept. 1, 2027; and (10) Replies to dispositive motions are due by Sept. 22, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Jack in the Box is an American fast food restaurant chain.[CC] JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid in Cossette Due Sept. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cossette v. Jani-King International Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01057-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Godbey entered a second amended class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with the Court) their motion for class certification by Sept, 11, 2026. 2. All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed. 3. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court order. No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted due to agreed extensions of these deadlines. a. Class discovery begins as of the date of this Order; b. The plaintiffs must designate experts, if any, by Sept. 11, 2026; c. The defendants must designate experts, if any, by Oct. 16, 2026; and d. The Plaintiffs must designate rebuttal experts, if any, Nov. 13, 2026. Jani-King is an American chain of commercial cleaning services franchises. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=minD6X at no extra charge.[CC] JEROME'S FURNITURE: Discriminates Against Mobility Impaired Persons ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESSE ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEROME'S FURNITURE WAREHOUSE, AND DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV23057 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 22, 2026) is a class action alleging that Defendant is in violation of the anti-discrimination state statutes of California, Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and California Civil Code. The complaint relates that the Defendant's stores that are located in the State of California are required to comply with California state law and be fully accessible to the mobility impaired. On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff patronized Jerome's located at 23401 Avenida De La Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA to purchase goods and suffered discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal access. Specifically, this store denied Plaintiff equal access because it does not provide an accessible parking lot and/or restroom. In an attempt to avoid litigation, Plaintiff provided notice and the opportunity to cure to Defendant. On May 14, 2026, Plaintiff sent a letter to the store manager of the 23401 Avenida De La Carlota, Laguna Hills Jerome's location informing him/her that this store is not accessible to him for the above reasons, that he was aware of similar accessibility barriers at other Jerome's locations, and asking that these problems be fixed within 30 days. Plaintiff did not seek any monies or statutory damages in his letter. Plaintiff received no response to his May 14, 2026, letter. As a result, he is now being deterred from patronizing all of Defendant's California locations. The complaint asserts that the violations are ongoing and continue to result in Plaintiff and unnamed mobility impaired class members suffering discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal access to these stores. Defendant has discriminated and is discriminating against Plaintiff, and others similarly situated by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities, and required by both the California Standards and by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, adversely affected by Defendant's violations of the laws of the State of California. Plaintiff has suffered direct and indirect injury as a result of the Defendant's actions and/or omissions, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of himself, and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative Class who has patronized or would like to patronize the stores. Plaintiff Jesse Anderson is a citizen of California and is domiciled in Hawthorne, CA and qualifies as an individual with disabilities. Defendant Jerome's Furniture Warehouse operates as many as 15 stores in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 JOMASHOP INC: Faces Brownlee Suit Over Unlawful Shipping Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- GAYLE BROWNLEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOMASHOP INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-7897 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2026) is a class action arising the Defendant's practice of automatically adding a shipping protection fee to the orders of its consumers. According to the complaint, Jomashop falsely conveys that shipping protection is necessary to compensate the consumer if their shipment is lost, stolen, or damaged -- when in truth the seller and the carrier, not the consumer, bear that risk. Consumers who pay Jomashop's Shipping Protection Fees do so either without noticing them, or under false pretenses. Pre-checking an optional, paid add-on is a "dark pattern," a manipulative design practice that causes consumers to pay for something they never chose to buy, says the suit. Plaintiff Brownlee, a customer of the Defendant who purchased from its website in February 2024 and October 2024, did not notice the Shipping Protection Fee at the time of her purchases. Jomashop Inc. sells jewelry and other consumer products online through its website, www.jomashop.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Matthaeus Martino-Weinhardt, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com mweinhardt@dovel.com JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Bid to File FAC Tossed as Moot ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY, et al., v. JONATHAN SKRMETTI, et al. Case No. 3:26-cv-00763 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Richardson entered an order denying as moot: -- the Plaintiffs' motion to set aside judgment and to file first amended complaint, and -- Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, renewed motion for preliminary injunction and class certification. The Court finds that there is no reason to believe that the public has any interest (and certainly not a substantial interest) in the sealed document, because the underlying motion (i.e., the Motion for Reconsideration) that the sealed document was filed in support of was decided without any regard to the sealed document. Therefore, the Court finds that the document that the Plaintiffs ask the Court to seal (i.e., the document filed under seal at Docket No. 54) can and shall instead be stricken from the docket, which in turn renders the Motion to Seal moot. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the sealed document, and therefore the motion to seal is denied as moot. Finally, the Court notes that the motion to seal filed at Docket No. 62 remains pending. This case remains closed. On July 17, 2026, the Plaintiffs, Lucy and Benjamin, filed a notice. Via the Notice, the Plaintiffs inform the Court that they have filed a new case, which, like this action, challenges Section 1 of H.B. 1704. Jonathan Skrmetti is an American attorney and public official. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vEF6Xy at no extra charge.[CC] JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Lucy Seeks Provisional Cert. of Noncitizen Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY, BENJAMIN, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. JONATHAN SKRMETTI, in his official capacity as the Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00998 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for provisionally certifying a class of all noncitizens who are subject to Section 1 of H.B. 1704. The Plaintiff Class is defined as: "All noncitizens who, now or in the future, are aliens against whom a valid final order of removal has been outstanding for 90 days or longer by reason of being a member of any of the classes described in 8 U.S.C. section 1227(a), and who intentionally fail or refuse to depart from Tennessee." H.B. 1704 threatens thousands of noncitizens across Tennessee. The class raises the uniform legal question of whether the statute is preempted by federal immigration law. And the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of all other class members, because they all face the same harms under the same preempted law, the Plaintiffs contend. Given the irreparable harm H.B. 1704 will inflict, Plaintiffs request provisional class certification in tandem with the issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Jonathan Skrmetti is an American attorney and public official. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OiJ5Gy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Esq. Zee Scout, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 320-7260 E-mail: lucas@aclu-tn.org zscout@aclu-tn.org - and - Peter McGraw, Esq. Efren Olivares, Esq. Kevin Siegel, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 1101 14th Street, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 E-mail: mcgraw@nilc.org olivares@nilc.org siegel@nilc.org - and - Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Noor Zafar, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: hsteinberg@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org nzafar@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org KAMAR SAMUELS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA LARACH COHEN, individually and on behalf of her child, M.C., v. KAMAR H. SAMUELS, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Dep't of Educ., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-05729-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered a general pretrial management order All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: 1. 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. 2. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and lettermotions are limited to 2000 words (approximately four pages), exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. 3. If you are aware of any party or attorney who should receive notice in this action, other than those currently listed on the docket sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at (212) 805-0228 immediately . A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e8fMoK at no extra charge.[CC] KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 28, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hannah Smith v. KeHE Distributors, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-01141-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order setting the deadlines for Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: Event Deadline Last date to hear motion to amend Oct. 16, 2026 pleadings or add Parties: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file May 28, 2027 motion for class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Defendant to file June 11, 2027 opposition to class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply June 18, 2027 in support of motion for class certification and any class certification rebuttal expert report: Class certification hearing: July 16, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. The Court further directs the parties to engage in a phased discovery plan. Phase 1 shall consist of pre-certification discovery to determine the scope and size of the putative class, as well as whether Plaintiff is able to meet the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Phase 2 shall consist of merits discovery. KeHE is an employee-owned wholesale food distributor in North America specializing in natural, organic, fresh, and specialty products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l9fQex at no extra charge.[CC] LASERSHIP INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Limas Due Feb. 15, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Limas v. LaserShip, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-11046 (D. Mass., Filed April 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order granting joint motion to set briefing schedule. Deadline to file motion for class certification: February 15, 2027. Deadline to file opposition to motion for class certification: March 31, 2027. Deadline to file reply brief in support of motion for class certification: April 14, 2027. Deadline to file any dispositive motions: 90 days after the decision on class certification. Deadline to file any opposition to dispositive motions: 120 days after the decision on class certification. Deadline to file any replies in support of dispositive motions: 140 days after the decision on class certification. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. LaserShip is a last-mile delivery and transportation company.[CC] LASERSHIP INC: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Sept. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Huggins et al., v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Case No. 1:24-cv-02345-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Trenga entered an order extending staying deadlines and all discovery through September 25, 2026. The Parties shall file a joint status report on September 25, 2026, to advise the Court of the status of their settlement efforts. Absent settlement, all discovery will close on October 30, 2026. Motions for class certification are due 30 days after the close of all discovery, and summary judgment motions are due 30 days thereafter; and the Joint Motion is otherwise denied. The Defendant is a regional last-mile parcel delivery company in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OJcARE at no extra charge.[CC] LAWGICAL INSIGHT: Court Excludes Stollman's Testimony ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANSARI MOHAMAD, v. LAWGICAL INSIGHT, LLC, ANDREW BAUTA, MICHAEL RUSSO, ROTTENSTREICH FARLEY BRONSTEIN FISHER POTTER HODAS LLP, MELIZA MILLER, and RICHARD I. SEGAL, Case No. 6:24-cv-02354-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an order granting Lawyer Defendants' motion to exclude Jeffery Stollman's testimony. Because Stollman is unqualified to offer his opinions, he used unreliable methods to arrive at them, and they will not assist the factfinder, the Stollman's methods regarding the ECPA and SCA are unreliable because they amount to his ipse dixit. Stollman's damages methodology is unreliable because it lacks "a reasonable factual basis" connected to this case. As to helpfulness, Stollman concluded that Defendants violated the ECPA and the SCA, and that in general, damages from unlawfully disclosed information totaled approximately $5,905, although additional analysis aimed at increasing precision could "result in values significantly lower or significantly higher," These conclusions are not helpful. Respecting the ECPA and SCA, an expert "may not merely tell the jury what result to reach" and "may not testify to the legal implications of conduct" because "the court must be the jury’s only source of law." The Plaintiff sues Defendants for their purported involvement in unlawfully accessing and disclosing confidential financial information pertaining to him, and to others similarly situated to him, in connection with a state court case against Plaintiff’s accountant. Lawgical is a consulting and legal services firm specializing in digital forensics, eDiscovery, and cyber-crime response. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4eFts at no extra charge.[CC] LAWGICAL INSIGHT: Mohamad's Bid to Certify Class Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANSARI MOHAMAD, v. LAWGICAL INSIGHT, LLC, ANDREW BAUTA, MICHAEL RUSSO, ROTTENSTREICH FARLEY BRONSTEIN FISHER POTTER HODAS LLP, MELIZA MILLER, and RICHARD I. SEGAL, Case No. 6:24-cv-02354-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Given the Plaintiff's delay in seeking class certification, the Defendants were not able to conduct any class discovery during the discovery period. Granting the Plaintiff's untimely motion for class certification would cause substantial delay and, thus, prejudice, the Court says. The Plaintiff's failure to meet this burden provides another basis for denying the motion, the Court adds. Lawgical is a consulting and legal services firm specializing in digital forensics, eDiscovery, and cyber-crime response. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i4Cb0K at no extra charge.[CC] LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox 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 29, 2026, that it is facing an amended consolidated case under the caption "In re HVAC Equipment Antitrust Litigation," No. 2:26-cv-10949 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This was brought on behalf of a putative class that alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, as amended, as well as certain state laws over alleged anticompetitive conduct in the HVAC equipment industry affecting a putative class of plaintiffs. On March 20, 2026, seven HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning) equipment manufacturers, including the company and certain of its affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a complaint filed in said court. Additional class action complaints were filed in April 2026 in the same court, based on similar allegations. These later complaints expanded the litigation but remained focused on alleged violations of federal antitrust law and related state statutes. The cases were subsequently On July 10, 2026, the plaintiffs filed three amended, consolidated class-action complaints in the consolidated proceeding. These amended pleadings superseded the earlier complaints and set forth the plaintiffs' consolidated allegations against the defendants, including the company. The consolidated cases remain pending in the Eastern District of Michigan under the noted caption and docket number. In addition to the consolidated class actions, the complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of HVAC equipment. The alleged class consists of all persons who purchased HVAC equipment in the U.S. during the period from Jan. 1, 2020, to the present, where the equipment was manufactured by one or more defendants for end use in a residential or commercial building. The complaints seek to recover an unspecified amount of damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. Lennox International Inc. is a global provider of climate control solutions for heating, air conditioning, ventilation, and refrigeration markets. It designs, manufactures, and markets a broad range of HVAC and refrigeration products for residential and commercial customers worldwide. LEXISNEXIS RISK: Kohama Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAKI KOHAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01422-RBM-BJW (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), certifying the following Class: "For the period beginning two years prior to the filing of this matter until the date of the Court's class certification order, all individuals with an address in the United States and its Territories about whom Defendant (1) prepared an ROI letter which stated that the "data being reported" was determined to be "unverifiable"; (2) per the ROI letter, the data in question was "updated" or "removed" from the Defendant's files; and (3) the Defendant sent a file disclosure together with the ROI letter to that individual that included a copy of a CLUE Report which it had furnished to a third party." The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative, and appoint their counsel as Class Counsel. LexisNexis is a global data and analytics company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GK1r1O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika Angelos Heath, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 369 Pine Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 246-1352 E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com LGCY POWER: Dounane Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDELHAMID DOUNANE, v. LGCY POWER, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-04720-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an order granting the joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and preservation of rights as follows: 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Parties' Joint Stipulation and this Order. 2. The applicable statute(s) of limitations for the putative class action claims alleged in this federal court action against the Defendant shall be tolled during the period between the voluntary dismissal of this action and the filing of the planned Amended PAGA Complaint to be filed in the state court action captioned Abdelhamid Dounane v. LGCY Power, LLC et al., Alameda County Case No. 25CV133793 (the "PAGA Action"). 3. In addition, the class period for the putative class action claims asserted in this action against Defendant, which claims against the Defendant shall be added to the PAGA Action through an amended complaint, will not be altered or affected by the voluntary dismissal of this action and the filing of the Amended PAGA Complaint in the PAGA Action. 4. That said, the Defendant reserves all of its other rights with respect to contesting class certification and limiting the scope of any alleged class period in the PAGA Action or any other case (e.g., Defendant reserves the right to argue that no class should ever be certified in the PAGA Action and even if some class were to be certified a release from a prior class action settlement limits the scope of any class period). 5. All discovery conducted in this federal court action, including but not limited to any written discovery, document productions, deposition notices, and all related meet and confer efforts, shall be preserved and may be used in the PAGA Action. The Defendant is a residential solar sales company offering a clean alternative to traditional electricity. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RRgNzP at no extra charge.[CC] LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hellested Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCI HELLESTED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN GROUP OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. d/b/a BROWN HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP-MA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00482 (D.R.I., July 22, 2026) arises out of Defendant Brown Health Medical Group's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving medical care services from Defendant Brown Health Medical Group, or alternatively being employed by Brown Health Medical Group, each patient and employee must provide (and Plaintiff did provide) Defendant Brown Health Medical Group with sensitive, personal, and private information, such as their: Name, address, phone number, and email address; Date of birth; Social Security number; Marital status; Employer with contact information; Primary and secondary insurance policy holders' name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number; Demographic information; Driver's license or state or federal identification; Information relating to the individual's medical and medical history; Insurance information and coverage; and Banking and/or credit card information. Defendant also creates and stores medical records and other protected health information for its patients, records of treatments and diagnoses. Defendant agreed to and undertook legal duties to maintain the protected health and personal information entrusted to it by Plaintiff and Class Members safely, confidentially, and in compliance with all applicable laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA"), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Yet, through its failure to properly secure the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class, Brown Health Medical Group failed to meet its own promises of patient privacy, asserts the complaint. According to Defendant's website Notice, it first became aware of a data security incident impacting a historic file server on its network on December 16, 2025, and determined through its investigation that the unauthorized access to the server occurred between December 15 and 16, 2025. Despite learning of the Data Breach and determining the scope of the Private Information involved in the breach by June 22, 2026, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until on July 16, 2026, says the suit. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years to come closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, adds the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty, (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Marci Hellested was a patient of Brown Health Medical Group. Defendant Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc. d/b/a Brown Health Medical Group-MA operates physician and clinical practices, including a location on Faunce Corner Road, Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: 401-831-7730 Facsimile: 401-861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Class Cert Filing in Riganian Due Jan. 22, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christina Riganian and Donna Spurgeon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LIVERAMP HOLDINGS INC. and LIVERAMP INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00824-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order amending case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to complete Dec. 16, 2026 fact depositions for class certification briefing: The Plaintiffs' motion for class Jan. 22, 2027 certification and class expert reports: LiveRamp's opposition to class March 22, 2027 certification and class expert reports: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion April 19, 2027 for class certification and rebuttal class expert reports: Class certification expert discovery cut-off: May 17, 2027 LiveRamp offers a data connectivity platform whose services include data onboarding, the transfer of offline data online for marketing purposes. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7rhHr7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. Linnea D. Pittman, Esq. Danna Elmasry, Esq. Anna J. Freymann, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com lpittman@lchb.com delmasry@lchb.com afreymann@lchb.com - and - Jason "Jay" O. Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Trevor N. Templeton, Esq. Matthew A. Macdonald, Esq. Madelyn Y. Chen, Esq. Caitlin Mckelvie, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 953 East 3rd Street, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1952 Telephone: (323) 210-2900 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 E-mail: matthew.macdonald@wsgr.com ttempleton@wsgr.com madelyn.chen@wsgr.com cmckelvie@wsgr.com - and - Bourgon B. Reynolds, Esq. Nancy A. Smith, Esq. ROSE LAW FIRM A Professional Association 809 South 52nd Street, Ste. A Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 435-2921 Facsimile: (479) 301-2449 E-mail: breynolds@roselawfirm.com nsmith@roselawfirm.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Quezada Suit Seeks Damages From Police Shooting ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL QUEZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS ANGELES; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; and DOES 1 TO 40, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-07095-WLH-KS (C.D. Cal., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Bane Act, and Federal Tort Claim Act, unreasonable search and seizure, substantive due process, municipal liability, battery, and negligence. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of various rights under the United States Constitution and state law in connection with the non-lethal police shooting of the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendants indiscriminately discharged non-lethal rubber rounds into the public crowds at or near the intersection of Main Street and Temple Street in Los Angeles, California on or about June 14, 2025, striking the Plaintiff, and causing him serious physical injury. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered extreme mental and physical pain and suffering and injuries, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of earning capacity. County of Los Angeles is a public entity in California. City of Los Angeles is a public entity in California. United States Marshals Service is a public agency in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Sasooness, Esq. Lior Behdadnia, Esq. SASOONESS LAW GROUP, APC 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 990 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 922-7700 Facsimile: (818) 922-7750 Email: shawn@saslg.com lbehdadnia@saslg.com LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Review of Oubre Claim Determinations Rejected ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of GERALDINE OUBRE, ET AL., v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS FAIR PLAN. IN RE LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 26-C-121 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, denied Citizens' writ application seeking supervisory review of the district court's Feb. 27, 2026, ruling denying Citizens' objections to the Special Master's claim-validity determinations and its alternative request for guidance to the Special Master. For more than 20 years, this class action has involved insured property owners seeking penalties under former La. R.S. 22:658 and La. R.S. 22:1220 for Citizens' alleged failure to timely adjust property damage claims following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Over the years, the claims process has resulted in payments to affected individuals. This writ application concerns the final set of claims. On Oct. 30, 2013, the district court approved a settlement establishing a claims-made process administered by a Special Master. The Class Counsel submits a database of eligible claims to the Special Master, Citizens has 30 days to object, and the Special Master determines which claims are valid. Class members whose claims are deemed valid receive a $4,500 payment from Citizens. Under the settlement, the Special Master's determinations are final and binding, with no right of appeal. The writ application concerns Submission "R," the eighteenth and final submission of claims. The Class Counsel submitted the claims to the Special Master in August 2025. Citizens objected that some claims lacked standing because the supporting affidavits were not executed by the insureds and that others were stale because they should have been included in earlier submissions. The Special Master considered Citizens' October 2025 objections but rejected its November objections as duplicative or untimely. In Report No. 22, issued Dec. 18, 2025, the Special Master identified the valid claims. In a Jan. 21, 2026, Supplemental Report, he concluded that the affidavits challenged on standing grounds were properly executed and that only three claims subject to the staleness objection were postmarked after the deadline. Citizens raised its objections again before the district court. After further briefing and a Feb. 27, 2026, hearing, the district court denied the objections and Citizens' alternative request for guidance to the Special Master, finding no basis to disturb the Special Master's claim-validity determinations for Submission "R." Citizens then filed the writ application. Citizens argued that the district court erred in denying its objections and request for guidance, maintaining that Sections IV(G) and (L) of the settlement required the court to resolve disputes the Special Master could not. Citizens also argued that prior interlocutory rulings and writ denials by the Court of Appeal and Louisiana Supreme Court did not preclude judicial review. The Settled Class argued that the writ should be denied because the settlement expressly makes the Special Master's claim-validity determinations final and binding, with no right of appeal. It also relied on the Court of Appeal's prior decision holding that this provision bars trial court review of those determinations. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Settled Class and denied Citizens' writ application. It held that Section II(D)(3)(c) of the Stipulation of Settlement clearly and unequivocally makes the Special Master's determinations regarding valid claims final and binding, with no right of appeal. The Court relied on its 2018 decision interpreting the same provision as precluding trial court review of the Special Master's claim-validity determinations and adhered to that interpretation. The Court rejected Citizens' argument that Sections IV(G) and IV(L) required the district court to review its standing and staleness objections. Those provisions concerning enforcement of the settlement did not override the specific provision barring judicial review of the Special Master's claim-validity determinations. The Court also noted that the Special Master had considered Citizens' timely October 2025 objections and rejected its November objections as duplicative or untimely. Because the settlement made the Special Master's determinations final and unreviewable, the Court of Appeal found no error in the district court's denial of Citizens' objections to Submission "R" or its alternative request for guidance. The writ application was denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision is available at https://lnk.ua/9nAbzjJWM LOVINGTON, NM: Cooper Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE COOPER, on behalf of herself and other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF LOVINGTON and DAVID MIRANDA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02368 (D.N.M., July 22, 2026) is a civil action for monetary damages brought by the Plaintiff for redress over Defendants' employment discrimination under the Equal Pay Act provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, unlawful retaliation under EPA, and corresponding violations of the Fair Pay for Women Act and Whistleblower Protection Act of the State of New Mexico. According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally discriminated in pay and conditions of employment against Cooper during her employment (from September 13, 2023 through January 14, 2025) and other female employees similarly situated through sex-discrimination in pay and retaliated against Cooper after she engaged in protected activity by formally complaining of the pay disparity. The Defendants violated EPA, FPWA, and WPA in a continuing action, by retaliating with escalating threats and reprisal against Plaintiff Cooper each and every time she opposed the unequal pay, asserted a claim or right, assisted another person to assert a claim or right, or informed another person about rights provided under EPA, FPWA, and WPA, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff opposed unequal pay affecting not just herself, but multiple women, through multiple internal complaints to City in August 2024. Immediately after each of those complaints, the Defendants summoned her to discipline meetings and/or wrote Plaintiff Cooper up, specifically for making the complaints. The Defendants in swift reprisal terminated her employment on January 14, 2025, says the suit. Plaintiff Cooper was employed by the Defendants as finance director from September 11, 2023 through January 15, 2025. City of Lovington is a municipal corporation organized under the laws and statutes of the State of New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trent A. Howell, Esq. P.O. Box 2304 Santa Fe, NM 87504 Telephone: (505) 919-9158 E-mail: trent@trentahowell.com - and - Clayton C. Bradley, Esq. 910 W. Pierce St. #248 Carlsbad, NM 88220 Telephone: (575) 499-9004 E-mail: clayton@bradleylawofficenm.com LUCKY STRIKE: Installs Website Trackers Without Consent, Lloyd Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT LLOYD III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCKY STRIKE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21148 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act, Wiretap Act, California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of installing tracking technologies on its website without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendants embedded numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google and Microsoft Corporation on its website to collect website visitors' identifying information and interactions. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practice, the Plaintiff's and similarly situated website users' privacy rights were violated. Strike Entertainment Corporation is a production company, with its principal place of business in Mechanicsville, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com LUMEXA IMAGING: Court Consolidates Related Cases ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. LUMEXA IMAGING, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-00341-BO-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Boyle entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases and appoint interim co-lead class counsel and interim liaison counsel: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the Court consolidates under the lowest numbered Lawrence action, Case No. 5:26-cv- 00339-BO, and with the new title "In re Lumexa Imaging Data Breach Litigation." (a) Lawrence v. Lumexa Imaging, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00339-BO ("Lawrence"); (b) Ellison v. Lumexa Imaging, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00340-BO ("Ellison"); and (c) Moreno v. Lumexa Imaging, Inc. , No. 5:26-cv-00341-BO ("Moreno") No further filings shall be made in the Ellison and Moreno actions, which shall be administratively closed. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint shall be filed within the next 30 days. This Order shall apply to any subsequently filed putative class action alleging the same or substantially similar allegations. All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action. The Plaintiffs shall file a Notice of Related Case whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred to, this District. The Defendants moved for an extension of time to respond to the consolidated complaint. For good cause shown, the Defendants' motion is granted and the time to respond is extended to 45 days after the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. Lumexa is a major United States provider of outpatient diagnostic imaging services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3073Lh at no extra charge.[CC] MAC DISCOUNT: Case Management Order Entered in Machen Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDY MACHEN, v. MAC DISCOUNT, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00589-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered a case management order. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) on or before August 18, 2026. The parties shall file any motion to add new parties on or before September 14, 2026. The parties shall file any motion to amend the pleadings on or before September 14, 2026. The parties shall complete the first phase of discovery, related to Plaintiff's proposed motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective, on or before September 21, 2026. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the possibility of a joint stipulation regarding conditional certification. The parties shall file any such joint stipulation on or before September 28, 2026. If no stipulation has been reached, Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective, supporting brief, and appendix of supporting evidence shall be filed on or before October 12, 2026. The brief shall be limited to ten (10) pages. The Defendant's brief in opposition and appendix of supporting evidence shall be filed on or before October 19, 2026. The parties shall complete the second phase of discovery, related to Plaintiff's proposed motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on or before January 21, 2027. The Plaintiff's motion for final certification of the FLSA collective, if any, shall be filed on or before February 11, 2027. The Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification, if any, shall be filed on or before February 11, 2027. Mac Discount is a company that may operate in retail or wholesale sectors, often involving discount products or services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQZOuB at no extra charge.[CC] MACY'S RETAIL: Bid to Compel Further Discovery Response Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE AGNEW, FELISA BRYANT, DEBORAH CERKEZOGLU, AZA ZHAMBEKOVA, and SHAWNA STUMP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02006-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order: -- granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel further discovery responses and Rule 34 Inspection, and -- directing the Defendant to serve supplemental responses to the following Requests for Production (RFPs): RFP No. 1, RFP No. 5, RFP No. 6, RFP No. 8, RFP No. 18, and RFP No. 19, if any such documents remain outstanding. The Court denies the remainder of the Plaintiffs' motion. RFP No. 1 seeks "all marketing, promotional, or advertising emails sent or caused to be sent by Defendant during the Class Period, including all associated subject lines." The Defendant objected that the "request is improper because a class has not been certified—a putative class action and any certification of a class must be limited to claims that fall within that community of interest of Plaintiffs’ claims, as the class representatives." But these emails could substantiate class allegations as well as help meet Rule 23 requirements, such as typicality and commonality. Thus, Defendant must provide documents responsive to RFP No. 1. RFPs No. 3 and 4 seek information as to the Defendant's process for generating the emails that Plaintiffs say violated CEMA. At this stage, discovery into that process does not appear to be necessary for substantiation of class allegations. And the Plaintiffs make no specific arguments as to why they require these documents to so substantiate. Thus, the Court will not compel production in response to these RFPs. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, claiming that Defendant violated Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), RCW 19.190.020, 1 when it sent them false or misleading marketing emails. On Jan. 23, 2026, the Plaintiffs served their first sets of Interrogatories, RFPs, and Requests for Admission (RFAs) Macy's owns and operates department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ciTw7l at no extra charge.[CC] MAGNITE INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edward Lewis et al., v. Magnite, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03448-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs fail to satisfy predominance for several reasons. First, individualized inquiries would predominate as to whether a putative class member's browser had a khaos ID at all. Second, there are individualized questions that would predominate regarding putative class members' consent to cookies, the Court says. The Plaintiffs also fail under Rule 23(b)(3) because they have not shown that the Court can measure damages on a classwide basis. Without a suitable method to calculate damages, the Plaintiffs have not met the predominance requirement, the Court adds. The Plaintiffs initially proposed the following class and an associated California subclass: Class: "All persons in the United States whose personal information, communications, or private information, or data derived from their personal information, communications, or private information, was used to create a profile and/or made available for sale or use through the Defendant's platform, distributed or sold in the process of delivering advertising on websites, mobile applications, or other digital media, or otherwise." California Subclass: "All California residents whose personal information, communications, or private information, or data derived from their personal information, communications, or private information was used to create a profile and/or made available for sale or use through the Defendant's platform, distributed or sold in the process of delivering advertising on websites, mobile applications, or other digital media, or otherwise." On reply, the Plaintiffs proposed the following modified class definitions: California Pen Register Class: "All California residents who had Magnite's khaos cookie installed on one or more of their devices." California Right of Privacy and Unjust Enrichment Subclass: "All persons in the Pen Register Class for whom Magnite collected personally identifying and private information." Nationwide Class: "All U.S. residents from whom Magnite collected personally identifying and private information using the khaos cookie." Magnite is an American online advertising technology firm. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TMie3J at no extra charge.[CC] MARATHON PETROLEUM: Renewed Class Cert Bid Continued to August 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, ET AL., V. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Darrel James Papillion entered an order granting "Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines Set Forth in Court's June 8, 2026, Minute Entry." The Court further entered an order that the: Plaintiffs' deadline to file a renewed Motion for Class Certification, as set forth in the Court's June 8, 2026, Minute Entry, is continued to Aug. 24, 2026 Parties' deadline to submit a joint proposed scheduling Order, as set forth in the Court's June 8, 2026, Minute Entry, is continued to 30 days following the Plaintiffs' filing of the renewed Motion for Class Certification. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3lMExd at no extra charge.[CC] MASSACHUSETTS: Green Seeks to File Portions of Memo Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN GREEN and EUGENE IVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Massachusetts Department of Correction et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11504-GAO (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file under seal portions of their Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as well as the following nine exhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification that were filed with the Declaration of Marissa Benavides in support thereof: -- Exhibit 1 is a bid response produced by Defendant Premier Biotech, Inc. with a designation of "Highly Confidential – Attorney's Eyes Only" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order submitted and filed with this Court as ECF No. 75. -- Exhibit 4 is a document that was produced by Defendant Sirchie Acquisition Co. LLC with a designation of "Confidential" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order submitted and filed with this Court as ECF No. 75. The Memorandum cites to and references this exhibit. -- Exhibit 5 is promotional material that was produced by Sirchie with a designation of "Confidential" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order submitted and filed with this Court as ECF No. 75. 1 The Plaintiffs propose that any order sealing the materials above be lifted only upon further order from the Court and that the sealed documents be kept in the Clerk's non-public information file during any post-sealing period. The Defendant is the government agency responsible for operating the prison system of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u5BFw2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Borden, Esq. Kory DeClark, Esq. Hadley Rood, Esq. Christman Rice, Esq. Marissa R. Benavides, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 747 Front Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 E-mail: declark@braunhagey.com borden@braunhagey.com hrood@braunhagey.com rice@braunhagey.com benavides@braunhagey.com - and - Janet Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC. 40 Rector Street, Floor 9 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org MAVA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stiles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KIRSTEN STILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAVA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, LLC d/b/a MAVA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-05311 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients. But 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 Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Mava Healthcare System, LLC is a healthcare provider delivering medical services across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camile Alvarez, 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: calvarez@straussborrelli.com MDL 3181: Chevas Sues Over Defective Spinal Cord Stimulator System ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teresa Chevas, Plaintiff v. Boston Scientific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08152 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is a class action 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. According to the complaint, 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. Boston Scientific also 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 Food and Drug Administration regulations and Florida law, thereby constituting the unauthorized practice of medicine. Furthermore, Boston Scientific also failed to warn patients and physicians of the true risks of lead failure, IPG/battery failure, and permanent nerve damage, says the suit. The Plaintiff was implanted with a Boston Scientific SCS system designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation. The Chevas suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 3181, In re: Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation. Boston Scientific Corporation is an American biotechnology and biomedical engineering firm and multinational manufacturer of medical devices.[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 MEDITERRANIA HOMEOWNERS: Unlawfully Installs ALPR, Scharon Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARISOL SCHARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDITERRANIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26STCV20783 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Automated License Plate Recognition Law and California's Unfair Competition Law, invasion of privacy under California Constitution, intrusion upon seclusion, common law invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment/restitution, and negligence and negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of implementing an Automated License Plate Recognition ("ALPR") surveillance network to track every vehicle that visits or drives near the Mediterrania community. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to maintain the mandatory ALPR usage and privacy policy on its website despite this extensive tracking and data sharing. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the surreptitious surveillance of their movements by unknown third parties; and (iii) statutory damages. Mediterrania Homeowners Association, Inc. is a homeowners' association for the Mediterrania community, a 200-home community in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. Alexander J. Garcia, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: tbean@sirillp.com aasciutto@sirillp.com agarcia@sirillp.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 Email: hlopez@milberg.com macciavatti@milberg.com - and - William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: wedelman@milberg.com MEDTRONIC USA: Pleitez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Healthcare Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ VERONICA P. PLEITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21114 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to furnish accurate itemized statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, and unfair and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff worked as a prior authorization specialist, a non-exempt position, for Medtronic at its campus in Northridge, California from approximately April 2018 to April 2026. Medtronic USA, Inc. is a healthcare technology company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aubry Wand, Esq. THE WAND LAW FIRM, PC 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 Email: awand@wandlawfirm.com MERCK SHARP: Class Cert. Oral Argument Rescheduled to August 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order that oral argument on the motion for class certification originally scheduled for Aug. 14, 2026 has been rescheduled for Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Argument will be heard in Courtroom 9-B of the United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA. The Defendant operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HpJQoq at no extra charge.[CC] MERCURY MANAGEMENT: Certification of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v MERCURY MANAGEMENT, LLC, GARRETT WISEMAN, and BLAKE WISEMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-02210-DDC-RES (D. Kan.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); -- granting final approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement; -- approving and awards $30,000.00 in attorneys' fees and litigation costs; and -- dismissing this action with prejudice and without further costs or fees to any party except as provided in the Settlement Agreement. Under the Settlement, the Defendants will pay a total gross settlement amount of $40,747.78, inclusive of: (i) an amount not to exceed $10,747.78 in Individual Settlement Payments to the named Plaintiff and the participating Tower Technicians, representing 100% of the unpaid overtime compensation attributable to hazard pay plus 100% of the corresponding liquidated damages; and (ii) $30,000.00 in attorneys' fees and litigation costs, negotiated and paid separately from the amounts payable to the Tower Technicians. On May 16, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his collective action Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), alleging that the Defendants failed to incorporate hazard pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into their hourly employees' regular rate of pay when calculating overtime compensation. Mercury "is a rural broadband internet provider [who] also installs and maintains the equipment needed for its high-speed broadband and fiber internet." A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w0XCVr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Snyder, Esq. SNYDER LAW FIRM, LLC 10955 Lowell Ave., Suite 710 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 685-3900 E-mail: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P .C. One Town Square, l 7th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com The Defendants are represented by: J. Randall Coffey, Esq. Darian D. Doser, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4622 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 910 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 842-8770 Facsimile: (816) 842-8767 E-mail: rcoffey@fisherphillips.com ddoser@fisherphillips.com META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON and ANACLETO DELEON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00083-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion continuing hearing for class certification to August 26, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. On June 23, 2026, the Court approved the Parties' stipulated schedule setting the hearing on the Motion for Class Certification and Motions to Exclude Experts for July 29, 2026. On July 10, 2026, the Court converted the July 29, 2026 hearing into a tutorial on the technology at issue and reset the hearing on the Motions for August 5, 2026. Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C4EvT5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Gardner, Esq. Michael W. Sobol, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. John D. Maher, Esq. Linnea D. Pittman, Esq. Wesley Dozier, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com jmaher@lchb.com lpittman@lchb.com wdozier@lchb.com - and - Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Allen Carney, Esq. Courtney E. Ross, Esq. Connor Thompson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com acarney@cbplaw.com cross@cbplaw.com cthompson@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq. Kristin I Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. Catherine Anne Rizzoni, Esq. Dianne Kim, Esq. Marissa Alter-Nelson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com cat.rizzoni@lw.com dianne.kim@lw.com marissa.alter-nelson@lw.com - and - Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com MIT45 INC: Seeks to Oppose Class Certification Bid by Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.D. et al., v. MIT45 Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00499-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to continue briefing deadlines on the Plaintiffs' motion for accounting and to defer ruling on class certification pending mediation. -- The Defendant's opposition to the Motion shall be due no later than September 30, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Motion shall be due no later than October 14, 2026 The Parties further jointly request that the Court defer any ruling on Plaintiffs' fully briefed Motion for Class Certification until after the Mediation. Within five (5) business days after the conclusion of the Mediation, by September 18, 2026, based on the current Mediation date, the Parties shall file a joint status report advising the Court of the status and outcome of the Mediation. On June 9, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Accounting and Asset Preservation, originally noticed for hearing on July 20, 2026; The Defendant is the pioneering kratom company responsible for formulating kratom extracts. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L9gqvQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, 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 lsironski@bursor.com - and - Scott G. Braden, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Dr., Ste. 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. Nathan D. Thomas, Esq. Elizabeth M. Butler, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Facsimile: (801) 536-6111 E-mail: echristiansen@parsonsbehle.com nthomas@parsonsbehle.com lbutler@parsonsbehle.com - and - Courtney L. Baird, Esq. Daniel M. Doft, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 744-2200 Facsimile: (619) 744-2201 E-mail: clbaird@duanemorris.com ddoft@duanemorris.com MOLDEX-METRIC INC: Underpays Facility Technicians, Bertsch Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESTIN BERTSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLDEX-METRIC, INC.; EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS STAFFING GROUP II, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21102 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a facility maintenance technician from approximately September 2023 through September 2024. Moldex-Metric, Inc. is a manufacturer of respiratory and hearing protection solutions, headquartered in Culver City, California. Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, LLC is a staffing firm based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara DuVan-Clarke, Esq. Danielle L. GruppChang, Esq. P.J. Van Ert, Esq. Melissa Rodriguez, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com dgruppchang@blackstonepc.com pjvanert@blackstonepc.com mrodriguez@blackstonepc.com bdcservice@blackstonepc.com MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Dean Sues for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------ ADAM DEAN and CHRISTIAN ERICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07675-PHK (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy Defendant's unlawful conduct in violation of the California Automated License Plate Recognition Law. Motive provides its customers the installation of dual-facing and road-facing AI-powered dash camera systems in commercial vehicles. Motive's AI Dashcam continuously monitors and records the roadway, surrounding traffic conditions, and vehicle operations in real time through high-definition cameras that capture video footage, driving activity, vehicle movements, and roadway events. According to the complaint, Motive failed to properly and timely inform Plaintiffs and Class Members that their Vehicle Tracking Data was being captured, time-stamped, and recorded, and additionally failed to notify Plaintiffs and Class Members that the resulting data being aggregated enabled the long-term tracking of Plaintiffs and Class Members' individual movements. Motive's use of ALPRs is not just an invasion of privacy, but also a violation of the ALPR Law, in that Motive failed to publicly post the required policy and usage information as required by the statute, the complaint asserts. As a result of Motive's misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the surreptitious surveillance of their movements by unknown third parties; and (iii) statutory damages. Plaintiff Erickson worked as a FedEx Ground Contractor with Ground Logistics Services in the State of California in around 2022 to 2025. During this time, a Motive ALPR was installed in his company vehicle, and recorded him at all times. Motive Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and operator of Automatic License Plate Readers systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan L Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Elizabeth A. Orrick, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S, Ste. 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com eorrick@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street 8th Floor - #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 220 West Congress St., 2nd Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 217-2389 E-mail: aasciutto@sirillp.com MUTUAL TRADING: Underpays Sales Representatives, Kawatoko Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENTARO KAWATOKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUTUAL TRADING CO., INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20711 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sales representative from approximately June 2022 through June 1, 2026. Mutual Trading Co., Inc. is a Japanese food, alcohol beverage and restaurant supplier in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com NCAA: Bid to Exclude Saylor's Testimony Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelo et al., v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01781-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Roger ("Rusty") W. Saylor is granted in part and denied in part. Saylor observed common features and recurring practices across institutions over the course of his career. In addition, he managed billions of dollars in short-term financing used to create "warehousing facilities," which are special purpose entities (SPEs) created to purchase and pool student loans to later be securitized and sold to investors. Given the breadth and depth of Saylor's relevant experience, Saylor's testimony should not be excluded on the ground that he is wholly unqualified to "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," the Court avers. Further, the Plaintiffs objection thus appears to be based, at bottom, on their fear that Saylor's testimony about a reconciliation period might prove to be relevant to defendants' claims about the authenticity of their electronic rosters. This is not a basis upon which to exclude that testimony, the Court adds. This action (Seaman) was originally filed on Feb. 27, 2018, by Mutinta Michelo, K. Seaman, and M.R. Seaman, against Trust 2007-2, Trust 2007-3, TSI-NCO, and Forster, alleging violations of FDCPA and state law. The Trust Defendants served the expert report of Rusty Saylor on Jan. 24, 2025. National Collegiate is a collective of trusts that bundle private student loans into securities. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aV2vY7 at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-JMF-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement memorialized in the FedEx Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness and, therefore, meets the requirements for preliminary approval such that notice to the Class is appropriate. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the FedEx Agreement, Certification of the FedEx Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Notice of Settlement and Claim Form. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for FedEx in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program, at any time from January 23, 2019, through August 30, 2024. For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for FedEx in New York State, through the PDP, at any time from January 23, 2022, through August 30, 2024. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Dawkins, Lauzier, and Miron to represent the FedEx Class The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) on January 5, 202 at 10:00 a.m. ET. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bh4L8j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Crabill Seeks Unpaid Wages for Room Servers ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB CRABILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21087 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay split-shift premiums, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to indemnify necessary expenditures and losses, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an in-room dining and room service server at The London West Hollywood hotel between 2013 and 2019. He returned and began working at the hotel again on approximately July 2, 2023 until the present. Northwood Hospitality LLC is a luxury hotel operator in West Hollywood, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. STONEBROOK LAW 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-5533 Email: jft@stonebrooklaw.com OASIS LEGAL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Gafner's Time-Barred Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of SHANA GAFNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC d/b/a Oasis Financial; OFLC, LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a Oasis Financial Holding Company LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a Oasis Financial Operating Company, LLC and/or Oasis Structured Settlements; LIBRA SOLUTIONS INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 1-25-1480 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, affirmed the dismissal of Gafner's complaint with prejudice where the claims were time-barred and the doctrine of equitable tolling was inapplicable. Gafner, a New Jersey resident, entered into a non-recourse agreement with Oasis Financial on Jan. 4, 2017, while pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. Under the agreement, Oasis paid Gafner a purchase price in exchange for an ownership interest in the proceeds of her lawsuit or any related settlement. The amount owed to Oasis increased the longer it took Gafner to recover. The agreement also required her to pay various fees. The agreement was governed by New Jersey law and required any disputes to be brought exclusively in the Cook County Circuit Court. Gafner and Oasis also waived their rights to have any lawsuit handled as a class action. Gafner's attorney separately acknowledged receiving the agreement. On April 15, 2024, Gafner filed a four-count putative class action against Oasis Financial and related entities in Cook County Circuit Court. She alleged that the Defendants provided unlicensed consumer loans to New Jersey consumers, including Gafner, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (N.J.S.A. 17:11C-3). The complaint alleged that the loans were therefore void and unenforceable and that the Defendants charged fees and interest exceeding legal limits. Count I sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) (N.J.S.A. 56:8-2) through unconscionable practices, including operating without a license, charging usurious rates and fees, and failing to provide adequate disclosures. Count II alleged additional CFA violations and sought damages. Count III asserted unjust enrichment and sought disgorgement of profits or other benefits from the alleged improper loans. Count IV alleged violations of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA) (N.J.S.A. 56:12-14, et seq.). Gafner later amended the complaint to add another Oasis Financial affiliate as a defendant. The Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the entities other than Oasis Financial were not parties to Gafner's agreement and that the complaint alleged no basis for piercing the corporate veil. Gafner did not respond. The Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims as time-barred and to strike the class allegations, arguing that the agreement contained a valid and enforceable class action waiver. They maintained that the transaction was a non-recourse litigation funding agreement, not a loan, because Gafner owed Oasis nothing if she recovered nothing from her personal injury case. The Defendants further argued that Gafner's claims were untimely because she entered into the agreement in January 2017, more than seven years before filing suit in April 2024. They asserted that New Jersey's six-year limitations period applied to the CFA and TCCWNA claims, while Illinois' five-year period applied to the declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims. They also argued that the class action waiver was enforceable because it was conspicuous, Gafner acknowledged understanding the agreement, she was represented by counsel, and she had other funding options. Gafner responded that she had initially filed suit against the Defendants in New Jersey Superior Court on Jan. 4, 2023, exactly six years after entering the agreement. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which dismissed it on March 19, 2024, based on the agreement's forum selection provision. Gafner then filed her complaint in Illinois. Gafner argued that equitable tolling made her Illinois claims timely because she had mistakenly filed the initial action in the wrong forum. She also argued that the six-year New Jersey limitations period applied to her declaratory relief and unjust enrichment claims, rather than Illinois' five-year period. Finally, she contended that the class action waiver was unenforceable because the agreement was void from the outset due to the Defendants' alleged lack of required New Jersey lending licenses. The Defendants replied that equitable tolling was unavailable because Gafner did not mistakenly file her claims in the wrong forum. They argued that she intentionally disregarded the agreement's forum selection clause requiring litigation in Cook County, Illinois, and instead filed in New Jersey. They also maintained that Illinois' five-year statute of limitations applied to her declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims because those claims were not based on rights created by New Jersey law. On June 26, 2025, the circuit court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. It dismissed the Defendants that were not parties to Gafner's agreement under section 2-615. It also found Counts II and IV, alleging CFA and TCCWNA violations, time-barred under New Jersey's six-year limitations period and rejected equitable tolling based on the agreement's requirement that disputes be filed in Cook County. For Counts I and III, the court applied Illinois' five-year limitations period and found the claims accrued on Jan. 4, 2017, when the agreement was executed, making them untimely by Jan. 4, 2022. Although the court stated that it did not need to address the class action issue, it found the class action waiver enforceable. Gafner timely appealed. She argued that the applicable statutes of limitations were tolled because she timely filed her claims in New Jersey state court and promptly filed the Illinois action less than a month after the federal court dismissed the New Jersey case. The Defendants did not dispute that the Illinois claims were facially time-barred without tolling. They argued that Illinois' equitable tolling doctrine did not save Gafner's claims and that she had forfeited any argument that New Jersey's equitable tolling principles applied. The Appellate Court agreed that Illinois' five-year statute of limitations applied to Gafner's declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims (Counts I and III), rather than New Jersey's six-year period. The limitations period began on Jan. 4, 2017, when Gafner entered into the agreement and, based on her allegations, knew or should have known of the alleged violations. Thus, those claims were time-barred even when she filed the New Jersey action. For the CFA and TCCWNA claims (Counts II and IV), the Appellate Court held that New Jersey's six-year statute of limitations applied. The limitations period also began on Jan. 4, 2017. Gafner argued that filing her New Jersey action on Jan. 4, 2023, exactly six years after entering the agreement, equitably tolled the limitations period. The Appellate Court rejected Gafner's argument that she diligently filed her Illinois complaint less than a month after the federal action in New Jersey was dismissed. It noted that she filed the New Jersey action on the final day of the six-year limitations period for her CFA and TCCWNA claims. Even if equitable tolling were available, essentially no time remained on the limitations period when it resumed. The Appellate Court therefore held that equitable tolling did not apply and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Gafner's claims with prejudice as time-barred. Because the claims were untimely, it did not address the validity or enforceability of the agreement's class action waiver and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://lnk.ua/6tmBKxcAe OECONNECTION LLC: Faces Camacho Suit Over Data Security Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG CAMACHO, Plaintiff v. OECONNECTION LLC, Defendant, Case No. Case: 5:26-cv-01787-JRA (N.D. Ohio, July 30, 2026) is a class action arising from the failure of the Defendant to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of its employees, including Plaintiff. On or before March 6, 2026, the Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that occurred on or around March 5 and 6, 2026, various states Attorneys General of the Data Breach were notified on or around June 8, 2026 and Plaintiff and Class Members were notified of the breach on June 8, 2026. The complaint focuses on the failure to the Defendant to adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Plaintiff Camacho was an employee of Defendant prior to the Data Breach and received a Notice Letter, dated June 8, 2026, on or about that date. Defendant OEConnection LLC manufactures original equipment parts. The Company offers solutions for various original equipment manufacturers OEMs in the areas of parts availability, parts e-Commerce, backorder referral, professional services, parts marketing, inventory management, and business intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-4023 Facsimile: (813) 222-4708 Email: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N. 11th St. #402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 Email: ryan@maxeyfirm.com OLIN CORP: IPP's Bid to Seal Portions of Summary Judgment OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., et al., v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Wolford entered an order granting granting Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff The Tripp Plating Works, Inc. ("IPP")'s motion to seal portions of summary judgment and Daubert motion papers exchanged by the parties The Court also entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal portions of summary judgment and Daubert motion papers exchanged by the parties. The parties are directed to prepare their summary judgment and Daubert motions for filing in accordance with these rulings. In light of the sheer volume of documents being filed in connection with the motions for summary judgment and related Daubert motions, the Court is modifying its prior text order as follows: -- First, redacted versions of the Defendants' motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions shall be filed on the docket on or before Aug. 3, 2026. -- Second, once docket entries have been entered by the Court reflecting that the unredacted versions of the Defendants' motion papers have been filed under seal, then IPP shall proceed to file the redacted responses to the motions within 10 days thereafter. -- Third, once docket entries have been entered by the Court reflecting that the unredacted versions of IPP's response papers have been filed under seal, then the Defendants shall proceed to file their redacted reply papers within 10 days thereafter. A failure to comply to any degree with the processes set forth herein will result in the striking of all affected filings and the parties having to re-initiate the process. The Court has reviewed the parties' proposed sealing and redaction requests in connection with the instant motions and in context with its Decisions and Orders on prior sealing motions in this case and agrees that they are narrowly tailored to serve the identified confidentiality interests. IPP alleges an anticompetitive conspiracy by the Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in the United States. Olin is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=odKvoe at no extra charge.[CC] ORW USA: Acevedo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Stores ------------------------------------------------------------ ARTHUR ACEVEDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORW USA, INC., TAP WORLDWIDE, LLC, WHEEL PROS, LLC, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20690 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its stores to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its properties. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such entrance access, parking areas, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. ORW USA, Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator based in California. Tap Worldwide, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator based in California. Wheel Pros, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 PATRICK INDUSTRIES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 11, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN D. WILDS, et al., v. PATRICK INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00582-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Frankel entered a scheduling order as follows: The last date to amend the pleadings without leave of court as to plaintiff(s) is January 15, 2027; as to defendant(s) is January 29, 2027. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file the motion for class certification is June 11, 2027. The serving of reports from retained experts that parties intend to support or oppose Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification under Rule 26(a)(2) are due from plaintiff(s) by January 15, 2027; and from defendant(s) by February 15, 2027. The last date for the completion of ALL DISCOVERY is January 11, 2028. The deadline to file any dispositive motions is February 11, 2028, The deadline for the parties to engage in mediation is January 25, 2028. Each party or an agent with full authority to settle shall be in attendance at any mediation session unless otherwise excused by order of this court. The Court VACATES the Preliminary Pretrial Conference scheduled for July 30, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. EDT. On July 1, 2026, the parties were ordered to submit a joint proposed report no later than July 22, 2026. On July 22, 2026, the parties timely filed their proposed report presenting an agreed discovery plan, which the Court ADOPTS, in part, by reference. Patrick is a supplier of interior and exterior component solutions for the RV, Marine, Powersports, and Housing markets. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8oc0rR at no extra charge.[CC] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bills for Unusable Memberships, Hightower Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MEREDITH HIGHTOWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26STCV20723 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and Automatic Renewal Law, and unjust enrichment under New York Law. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of billing subscribers for multiple memberships associated with the same product when the additional membership provides no additional benefit or service. According to the complaint, the Defendant does not automatically terminate duplicative or unusable memberships associated with a product despite the fact that it is able to easily identify and terminate such duplicative or unusable memberships. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm and incurred damages. Peloton Interactive, Inc. is a fitness and wellness company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sue J. Nam, Esq. Kate J. Stoia, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: snam@reesellp.com kstoia@reesellp.com - and - George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 Email: ggranade@reesellp.com PENNSYLVANIA: Perez-Rivera's Bid to Intervene in Hammond Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHALIL HAMMOND, et al., v. PENNSYLVANIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00048-MCC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Carlson entered an order denying Mr. Bryan Perez-Rivera's motion to intervene and instead instruct plaintiffs' counsel to counsel with Mr. Perez-Rivera and advise the proposed co-plaintiff whether he would be an appropriate member of a putative class following certification. Broadly construed, Mr. Perez-Rivera seeks to join this case as a third party co-plaintiff under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which authorizes intervention as a right or permissive intervention. Mr. Perez-Rivera's desire to intervene as a representative party in this litigation, while entirely understandable, is inappropriate considering the procedural posture of this case. Under the standards for both permissive intervention and intervention as a right, intervention is inappropriate when the proposed intervenors' interest are already adequately represented in the litigation. Given the circuitous procedural path this case has already taken at this early stage, adding Mr. Perez-Rivera as a representative plaintiff would cause undue delay and prejudice to the existing plaintiffs and delay their efforts to open more appropriate pathways for individuals like Mr. Perez-Rivera to seek relief. The instant case challenges the constitutionality of prolonged solitary confinement of mentally ill inmates and argues that the plaintiffs’ prolonged solitary confinement violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3KpHJv at no extra charge.[CC] PHENOMENEX INC: Ahamed Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALMA AHAMED, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PHENOMENEX, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01472-WLH-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 14, 2026, will move the Court for an order certifying the following class and sub-class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: Class Plaintiffs: "All current and former sales employees working in California misclassified as "exempt", and were paid on a salary basis as opposed to hourly, whom were employed by the Defendant Phenomenex from Dec. 3, 2020 up through the time of trial in this matter." Terminated Employee Sub-class: "All similarly situated sales employees formerly employed by the Defendant in California from Dec. 3, 2020 up through trial whose employment was ended or terminated." The Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint herself, Salma Ahamed as class representative of all others similarly situated. The Plaintiff further requests the Court appoint The Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi, APLC as class counsel. The Plaintiff's claims are predicated on the contention that Defendant uniformly misclassified sales employees like Technical Sales Consultants and Account Managers as exempt employees and, as a result, denied them overtime wages and the meal and rest period protections afforded to non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff alleges that this uniform classification was unlawful. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from Sept. 11, 2017 to Dec. 6, 2023. Phenomenex is a life sciences company that sells laboratory equipment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JrwwMw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramin R. Younessi, Esq. Neda Tahoor, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI, APLC 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 480-6200 Facsimile: (213) 480-6201 E-mail: ryounessi@younessilaw.com ntahoor@younessilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ryan McCoy, Esq. Katherine R. Farr, Esq. Brianna Wilson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: rmccoy@seyfarth.com kfarr@seyfarth.com bwilson@seyfarth.com PRO GRILL: Fails to Properly Pay Field Technicians, Skelton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN SKELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRO GRILL CLEANING, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20706 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures, failure to timely pay wages, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt field technician from approximately March 25, 2025, to July 11, 2025. Pro Grill Cleaning, Inc. is a provider of mobile barbecue cleaning, repair, and sales services in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Shaolian, Esq. THE SHAOLIAN LAW FIRM, PC 16133 Ventura Blvd., 7th Floor Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 377-7477 Email: michael@shaolianlawfirm.com - and - Niran Grimberg, Esq. GRIMBERG LAW PC 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 120 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 746-6446 Email: niran@grimberglaw.com PUTNAM COUNTY, FL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Dec. 21 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTICE TRANSITIONS, INC and DALTON JUDD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Case No. 3:26-cv-00991-JEP-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jordan E. Pratt entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Deadline for providing mandatory Aug. 14, 2026 initial disclosures: Deadline for moving to join a party Oct. 1, 2026 or amend the pleadings: Deadline for moving for class Dec. 21, 2026 certification: Deadline for completing discovery May 24, 2027 and filing motions to compel: Mediation deadline: Sept. 29, 2027 Deadline for filing all other motions Nov. 17, 2027 including motions in limine: Trial Term Begins: Jan. 3, 2028 This case shall be referred to a mediation conference in an attempt to equitably settle the issues. Under the parties' agreement, Gregg L. Wirtz, Esq. will serve as the mediator. Putnam is a rural northeast Florida county centered around Palatka. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f9PLJq at no extra charge.[CC] RAYTHEON BARGAINING: Curry Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timmieo Curry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan; Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00129-JAS (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting requests for an additional two weeks, until August 11, 2026, to file and serve his Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests that the Court grant this motion and extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file and serve his Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification through and including August 11, 2026. The Plaintiff requests a second extension due to Plaintiff's counsel's numerous litigation commitments and deadlines, including several in-person, out-of-state depositions, an in-person court appearance in the Northern District of Illinois that was scheduled after Plaintiff's counsel agreed to the prior extension, and a recent change in counsel at Plaintiff's firm. These circumstances have limited counsel's ability to complete the Reply brief, and additional time is necessary to finalize it. Plaintiff has conferred with Defendants' counsel, who have advised that they do not oppose this request. In support of this motion, the Plaintiff states that he filed his combined Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Conform to Class Definition on May 26, 2026. Raytheon is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nDW3sV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com REMARKABLE CAREGIVERS: Faces Mangus Class Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Remarkable Caregivers RCKB LLC. The case is captioned as MANGUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMARKABLE CAREGIVERS RCKB LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26CU01849 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., July 6, 2026). Remarkable Caregivers RCKB LLC provides staffing to assisted living facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM 5743 Corsa Ave Ste 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 REMINE PLATFORM: Lists & Sells Mobile Numbers, Fransua Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PIERRE FRANSUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMINE PLATFORM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02303-GJL (W.D. Wash., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Colorado Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of listing the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members for commercial purpose without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website, remine.com, and mobile applications are a directory, which lists the cellular phone numbers of Coloradans it has never engaged with, has had no connection to, and who are unaware of its existence. As a result of the Defendant's misappropriation of the Plaintiff's and Class members' personal data, they are exposed to elevated risks of stalking, harassment, scams, identity theft, and unwanted telemarketing. Remine Platform, Inc. is a real estate data intelligence and multiple listing service (MLS) software company, with its principal place of business in Bellingham, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Parties Seeks Stay of Discovery -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERECK CARROLL, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01011-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint proposed discovery plan scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and 26, as well as LR 26-1. Because the Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that may result in the dismissal of all claims, the parties propose that discovery be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Because the parties do not know when the Court expects to decide the pending motion, they propose a schedule below that sets deadlines in relation to the date of the ruling on the motion to dismiss. (1) The Parties have agreed to exchange initial disclosures no later than 10 days after the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. (2) The discovery cut-off datewill be 150 days after the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. (3) The Parties propose that the deadline to file motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties shall be 60 days after the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. (4) The Parties propose that the deadline to disclose initial experts shall be 90 days after the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. The deadline to disclose rebuttal experts shall be 120 days after the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. Republic is a North American waste disposal company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o1Jzkt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Yancey III, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 800 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (480) 573-9272 Facsimile: (480) 613-7733 E-mail: myancey@consumerjustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Keith Williams, Esq. KAEMPFER CROWELL 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Facsimile: (702) 796-7181 E-mail: kwilliams@kcnvlaw.com - and - Darci Madden, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2366 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 E-mail: darci.madden@bclplaw.com REVIVAL RUGS: Morris Must Move for Default Judgment by August 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY MORRIS, v. REVIVAL RUGS INC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00512-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Ludwig entered an order that, on or before Aug. 7, 2026, the Plaintiff must request entry of default and move for default judgment, or take other steps to move the case forward. Failure to comply will result in dismissal for lack of prosecution pursuant to Civil Local Rule 41(c). The Court further orders that Morris's expedited motion to certify class is denied without prejudice. Because Morris's motion is not yet ripe (especially given the defendant's failure to appear), it will be denied without prejudice. On March 29, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, alleging that the defendant's website failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is a designer and manufacturer of handmade rugs, textiles, and home decor. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zHWnOn at no extra charge.[CC] ROBERT LARSON: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 3 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEVA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE ROBERT LARSON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. D/B/A VOLKSWAGEN OF TACOMA, Case No. 3:25-cv-05373-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Cartwright entered an order granting the joint motion to modify scheduling order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1). The Court extends certain deadlines in the Court's scheduling order by two weeks as follows: -- Class Certification Deadline from July 20, 2026 to Aug. 3, 2026; -- The Plaintiffs expert report deadline from Aug. 19, 2026 to Sept. 2, 2026; -- The Defendant's expert report deadline from Sept. 17, 2026 to Oct. 1, 2026; and -- Fact discovery deadlines from Aug. 19, 2026 to Sept. 2, 2026. The Defendant offers new and used Volkswagen cars, trucks, and SUVs. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cBxuZ2 at no extra charge.[CC] ROBLOX CORP: Extension of Deadline to File Pre-Class Cert Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Soucek, et al., v. Roblox Corporation et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline by which to file pre-class certification fact discovery-related motions from July 28, 2026, to August 18, 2026. The Parties have continued to work diligently to resolve ongoing discovery disputes and believe they have narrowed many of the contested issues. As of the date of this stipulation, the Parties are in the process of collecting and producing information pursuant to those meet-and confers. Thus, to account for ongoing discussions and review of final productions, the Parties conferred and agree that a final, three-week extension of the deadline by which to file pre-class certification fact discovery-related motions is warranted to allow the Parties to attempt to resolve outstanding discovery disputes, which may narrow the number of disputes that require the Court’s attention Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8biPtp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com - and - Andre Mura, Esq. Jake M. Seidman, Esq. Angela A. Ma, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com jms@classlawgroup.com aqma@classlawgroup.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com winston@jenningspllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Tiana Demas, Esq. Mariah Young, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Eduardo Santacana, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. Jessica L. Taylor, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 Facsimile: (312) 881-6598 E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com mayoung@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com esantacana@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com jtaylor@cooley.com ROBLOX CORP: Pre-Class Cert Fact Discovery Extended to August 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Soucek et al., v. Roblox Corporation et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting second joint stipulation to extend discovery-related motions deadline. The Court will not grant requests to further extend this deadline absent truly extraordinary circumstances. The deadline by which to file pre-class certification fact discovery-related motions should be extended from July 28, 2026 to August 18, 2026. Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fpcnrI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com - and - Andre Mura, Esq. Jake M. Seidman, Esq. Angela A. Ma, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com jms@classlawgroup.com aqma@classlawgroup.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com winston@jenningspllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Tiana Demas, Esq. Mariah Young, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Eduardo Santacana, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. Jessica L. Taylor, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 Facsimile: (312) 881-6598 E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com mayoung@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com esantacana@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com jtaylor@cooley.com ROYAL APPLIANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Garelick Due Oct. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN GARELICK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG. CO. d/b/a TTI FLOOR CARE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00446-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order granting joint stipulation to modify scheduling order: a. Deadline to file Class Certification Motion: Oct. 23, 2026; b. Deadline to file Opposition to Class Certification Motion: Nov. 20, 2026; c. Deadline to file Reply re Class Certification Motion: Dec. 3, 2026; and d. Hearing on Class Certification Motion: Dec. 22, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Royal manufactures consumer electronics and office equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=awj06W at no extra charge.[CC] RYAN MORAN: Parties Must Confer to Implement Preliminary Injunction ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.F. et al., v. Ryan Moran, Case No. 3:26-cv-05095-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Cartwright entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs are five Washington children with complex health needs who qualify for services from the Washington State Health Care Authority (HCA). They allege that Defendant Ryan Moran, the Director of HCA, has failed to provide their approved Private Duty Nursing and Personal Care services in violation of the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to provide their approved services and to pay parents who have been providing care to their children in the State's stead. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), Defendant shall take all actions within his power necessary for Plaintiffs O.S. and W.M. to receive their approved private duty nursing hours. To effectuate this requirement, counsel for Defendant and Plaintiffs shall meet and confer as soon as practicable and develop a plan for implementing the preliminary injunction. Among other things, the plan must identify the responsibilities of Defendant, the need for additional providers, methods of finding, securing, and retaining additional providers, and a timeline for accomplishing needed tasks. However, Defendant may not defer or delay his efforts to provide the required private duty nursing care to these Plaintiffs while the parties are developing the plan. In negotiating the plan, counsel shall diligently and in good faith take into account and apply this Court’s rulings and observations. Not later than 30 days from the entry of this order, Defendant and Plaintiffs shall file a joint status report regarding the status of effectuating the preliminary injunction. That status report must include a schedule going forward for regular updates to the Court. Because Defendant did not request a bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), and because the balance of equities overwhelmingly favors W.M. and O.S., the Court exercises its discretion and declines to impose a bond requirement. The motion with respect to Plaintiffs C.F., W.J., and J.P. is denied. The Court thus concludes that the balance of equities and the public interest favor W.M. and O.S., and these Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. On February 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class complaint alleging that Defendant violated several provisions of the Medicaid Act, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide their approved services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pX8uzF at no extra charge.[CC] SALVATION ARMY: Dekeese Balks at Defective Eviction Notices ----------------------------------------------------------- WILFORD DEKEESE, ROBERTA RUST, AKEMI LEE, LAJUANNA KANE, and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROPERTY OWNER SALVATION ARMY NGO; Salvation Army's General Counsel, Ayana Vasquez; SALVATION ARMY OCEANSIDE RESIDENCES, INC.; Kimball, Tirey, Kimball, and John LLP, LAWYERS/MANAGEMENT; INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY MANAGERS; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04174-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants as a federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations action, combined with claims under the California Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, the U.S. Fair Housing Act, Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations, and state tort law. The suit arises from an alleged systematic, coordinated, and ongoing criminal enterprise operated by the Defendants to fraudulently displace multiple elderly low-income tenants, including Plaintiffs, from a federally subsidized project-based Section 8 housing complex through the use of defective eviction notices, sham legal proceedings, harassment, intimidation, and the deliberate exploitation of each of Plaintiff's age, vulnerability, and dependency on federally subsidized housing. The complaint further asserts that the Defendants, acting as an association-in-fact enterprise, have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity including mail fraud, wire fraud, Hobbs Act extortion, and federal program fraud, targeting multiple elderly tenants simultaneously, demonstrating the coordinated, enterprise-wide nature of the scheme. Each Plaintiff has been subjected to the same fraudulent scheme, the same defective federal notice process, and the same campaign of harassment and mental suffering. Salvation Army NGO is a non-governmental organization. Salvation Army Oceanside Residents, Inc. is organized under the laws of the State of California, doing business in this District as the record owner of the property.[BN] Plaintiff Wilford Dekeese, of Carlsbad, California, appears pro se. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Dunsmore Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order granting final approval of Mental Health Settlement. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of "themselves and the approximately 4,000 incarcerated people who are similarly situated on any given day" to "remedy the dangerous, discriminatory, and unconstitutional conditions in the Jail." Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend Defendants' policies and practices contribute to the high death rates in the Jail, which "has for years exceeded the rates nationally and in other large California jails, [and] it reached chilling heights in 2021 when 18 people died, amounting to a death rate of 458 incarcerated people per 100,000." As relevant to this Order, the Court certified a class of individuals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) defined as: "All adults who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities (Incarcerated People Class)." A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mz31fa at no extra charge.[CC] SAZERAC COMPANY: Hernandez Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-24568-PCH (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying the proposed Class defined as: "All persons who purchased Fireball Malt in the State of Florida during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of this action and the date of an order granting class certification"; -- Appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; -- Appointing Christopher Gold, Esq. and Gold Law, PA as class counsel; and -- Directing the parties to confer on a proposed class notice plan. The Plaintiff does not ask the Court to certify conditionally or to defer any part of the Rule 23 analysis; the affirmative showing Brown requires is made now — an admitted uniform trade dress, an objective statutory standard, a pled and judicially accepted classwide damages methodology, and three sister-court certifications. Rule 23(c)(1)(C) means certification today costs nothing in flexibility; the Court retains full authority to refine the class definition or period as discovery arrives, the suit says. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v5L52L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, P.A. 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 900-4653 E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com SCHWARTZ VAYS: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Warren ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA WARREN, v. SCHWARTZ VAYS, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-01857-PX (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order that: 1. The Motion to deny class certification and to strike class allegations be granted; 2. The class action allegations in the Complaint be stricken; and 3. The Court grant the Defendants such other and further relief as justice so requires. The Defendants move to deny class certification and to strike the class allegations because the allegations in the Complaint fail to make a prima facie showing that Rule 23 could be satisfied. The Court should consider this motion at the pleading stage because Plaintiff—and, more particularly, her counsel—appear to have invoked Rule 23 for altogether improper purposes. The Plaintiff's counsel appear to have styled this case as a class action to impose on the Defendants the stigma of a class-action defendant and to exploit Rule 23's well-known in terrorem effect. The Court should not tolerate such gamesmanship, particularly where the Complaint’s allegations make class certification wholly implausible, the Defendants aver. Schwartz specializes in providing debt collection services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c5VPLC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian L. Moffet, Esq. Michael B. Brown, Esq. MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C. 100 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 727-6464 E-mail: bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com mbbrown@milesstockbridge.com SCHYLLING INC: Mendoza Files Suit Over Sensory Toys' Hazard Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTIANA MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHYLLING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-07534 (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant/ Defendant SCHYLLING, INC. designs, manufactures, tests, labels, advertises, distributes, warrants, and sells NeeDoh Products throughout California and the United States. Schylling markets the NeeDoh products for repeated squeezing by children and adults, including at school, at home, in the office, and in the car, and promotes them as sensory toys that can help with relaxation, fidgeting, focus, or stress relief. The products share a basic construction: a flexible exterior outer shell encloses a sticky, gel-like, or maltose filling. Schylling sells the same concept in many shapes and sizes, including 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 other NeeDoh variants. Although individual models may use different formulations, their shared safety problem is the same: when the enclosed filling becomes heated, its temperature, volume, pressure, or viscosity may change while it remains sealed inside the flexible outer shell. Subsequent handling or squeezing may then cause the product to rupture or explode, ejecting dangerously hot and sticky filling. The filling's ability to adhere to skin can prolong heat exposure, make prompt removal difficult, and cause severe thermal burns. The complaint notes that despite this known danger, Schylling does not warn consumers that heat exposure may cause a NeeDoh Product to rupture or explode and eject hot filling capable of causing severe burns. Schylling warns that the "contents may become hot" when leaving the product in a car or direct sunlight. A separate warning addressing heating, freezing, or microwaving states only that the conduct may cause "personal injury". Neither warning communicates the mechanism or severity of the danger: that when heated, a NeeDoh Product may rupture, burst, or explode and forcefully eject hot, adhesive filling capable of causing severe burns, hospitalization, permanent scarring, or disfigurement. Both warnings are placed on the back of the packaging, where they are unlikely to been seen by the consumer, it adds. Schylling specifically promotes NeeDoh Products as sensory and fidget products as appropriate for schools and those with special needs, and as products that may help with anxiety, focus, attention, and centering. Those promoted uses were material to Plaintiff's decision to buy a NeeDoh Product. The Plaintiff purchased a NeeDoh Nice Cube in California for personal, family, or household purposes and suffered physical and economic injury. Schylling knew of the hazards before Plaintiff's purchase, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks compensation for her individual physical injuries and related losses. On behalf of the proposed California Class, she seeks economic relief for purchases made without disclosure of the latent safety defect and injunctive relief requiring truthful, specific warnings and other appropriate corrective measures. On behalf of a California Injury Subclass, she also seeks adjudication of common strict-liability issues and recovery for persons physically injured by the same rupture hazard. Plaintiff CRISTIANA MENDOZA is a behavioral technician that works with autistic children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby, Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Hearing Adjournment Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evans v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting request adjourning the hearing on Plaintiffs' motions for class certification currently scheduled for August 12, 2026, due to a scheduling conflict for SPS's counsel. The parties have conferred regarding alternative dates and jointly submit that all counsel are available on September 1, September 2, or September 3, 2026. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court reschedule the hearing to one of those dates, or to another date thereafter that is convenient for the Court. The request is made jointly, in good faith, and not for purposes of delay. The requested adjournment will not prejudice any party. The Defendant is a mortgage servicer founded in 1989 and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dao5cM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christine N. Walz, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 787 Seventh Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 513-3200 E-mail: christine.walz@hklaw.com SERRANO HEALTHCARE: Faces Cole Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DESHAWN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERRANO HEALTHCARE, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21119 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a dietitian from July 22, 2025 until the present. Serrano Healthcare, LLC is a skilled nursing facility owner and operator, located in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com SMM FACILITIES: Mendoza Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMM Facilities, Inc. The case is captioned as TRINIDAD ESPINOZA MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SMM FACILITIES, INC., Case No. 26CV497270 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 29, 2026). A case management conference is set for October 29, 2026. The suit is brought against the Defendant for employment violation. SMM Facilities, Inc. is a janitorial service provider in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark Dee Potter, Esq. Jason Kyle Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 SMOKY ROSE: Court Withdraws Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Savage v. Smoky Rose LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00914 (N.D. Tex., April 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ada Brown entered an order withdrawing Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Smoky Rose is a chef-driven Tex-Mex and barbecue restaurant and hospitality company located at 8602 Garland Road in Dallas, Texas. [CC] SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 25, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MORRISON, DALLAS MORRISON, and GUILLERMO PIERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPINNAKER INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00324-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: The Plaintiffs will designate experts (if any) Sept. 8, 2026 and provide reports and disclosures required under Federal Rule 26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b): The Defendant will take and complete Oct. 27, 2026 depositions of experts disclosed by the Plaintiffs (if any): The Defendant will designate experts (if any) Nov. 10, 2026 providing reports and disclosures required under Federal Rule 26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b): All discovery procedures (excluding Nov. 12, 2026 Defendant's Phase I Expert Witnesses) must be initiated in time to be completed by this date, with the understanding that discovery requests are not timely if they are served so close to this deadline that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the response would not be due until after the deadline: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Jan. 25, 2027 motion for class certification: Spinnaker is a national property and casualty insurance carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BievAI at no extra charge.[CC] SPRINGS REJUVENATION: Sells Illegal Stem Cell Products, Sutton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JULIETA SUTTON, and ZENAT VAKILI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPRINGS REJUVENATION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04135-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 21, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of the California consumer protection laws, as well as other common law claims, seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Defendant operates regenerative medicine clinics that advertise biologic injections -- including stem-cell-derived products and exosomes -- as therapies capable of promoting tissue repair, cellular regeneration, improved mobility, and enhanced health outcomes. The Defendant's website promotes regenerative therapies as treatments that can: stimulate cellular regeneration; improve tissue repair; enhance longevity; improve joint function and reduce pain. These claims create the impression that Defendant's treatments are medically proven therapies capable of regenerating tissue and treating degenerative conditions. According to the complaint, the therapies Defendant sells are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of arthritis, degenerative joint disease, or similar musculoskeletal conditions. The Defendant has not even obtained FDA approval for these products or the services in which they are used. The Defendant's representations and omissions are material to consumers like Plaintiffs when deciding whether to purchase costly regenerative services and products, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiffs and the Class paid substantial sums of money for treatments and products marketed as capable of addressing chronic and progressively worsening joint pain and functional limitation, but they did not receive the advertised benefits, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action, asserting statutory and common law claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to seek redress from the damage inflicted by Defendant's systematic, deceptive, and fraudulent advertising and practices. In addition to monetary relief, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive and equitable relief to stop Defendant's misleading advertising and illegal sale of a non-FDA approved service and drug. Springs Rejuvenation LLC is a Georgia entity with a principal place of business in Atlanta. The Company operates regenerative medicine clinics, including in Los Angeles, California and New York City, New York, that market and sell stem cells, exosomes, platelet-rich plasma, and related regenerative therapies to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Joseph Lyon, Esq. Clint Watson, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, ALC 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com cwatson@thelyonfirm.com - and - Brandon Wise, Esq. Domenica Russo, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com drusso@peifferwolf.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2026, that, on April 21, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the defendants' unopposed motion to stay a consolidated derivative action against its CEO, pending resolution of the Singh Family Revocable Trust securities class action. This had been consolidated under the caption "MacDonald v. Jack Sinclair, et al.," No. CV-25-04723-PHX-DWL. The case remains stayed as of the reporting date. It emphasizes that no substantive proceedings will occur in the consolidated derivative matter until there is further development or resolution in the Singh Family Revocable Trust securities class action. This procedural posture may affect the timing of any potential recoveries, costs, or corporate governance changes arising from the related litigation. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. is a specialty grocery retailer focused on fresh, natural, and organic products, operating a network of stores across the United States. It emphasizes health-oriented, value-driven offerings that cater to consumers seeking better-for-you food options. STANLEY BLACK: Class Cert Bid Deadline in Howe Vacated ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Howe, et al., v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04180 (W.D. Mo., Filed Aug. 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order vacating the deadline to file the motion for class certification. The Court further entered an order that the parties will file a proposed settlement approval schedule within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Stanley is an American manufacturer of industrial tools and household hardware.[CC] STATE FARM: Seeks to Decertify Class in Pitkin Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA PITKIN and DAN GROUT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order decertifying class. Plaintiffs' Trial Plan reveals that Plaintiffs in fact have no plan to resolve these issues consistent with due process, the Rules Enabling Act, the Erie doctrine, and the Seventh Amendment. Controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority dictates that the sole certified class cannot proceed under either Rule 23(b)(3) or Rule 23(b)(2). Decertification should be granted. Class membership, injury and liability all raise factual questions that cannot be resolved across the class in one stroke. Even Plaintiffs’ damages theory requires determining which class members actually had depreciation attributable to sales tax withheld on their claims, and in what amount. Because no qualifying common question under Rule 23(a) remains, the class should be decertified for this reason alone. On July 15, 2025, the Court certified a single class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and damages under Rule 23(b)(3). (ECF 102). The certified class now includes: All persons who, between March 1, 2019, and the present, were or are a named insured under a property insurance policy issued in California by Defendant, who suffered a covered loss to personal property for which they received payment of actual cash value (ACV) benefits that were reduced due to depreciation of sales tax, and who were paid or are reasonably certain to be paid benefits in an amount that is less than the applicable policy limits. The Defendant offers automobile, property, casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. State Farm Fire and Casualty serves customers in the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CGVKWR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer M. Hoffman, Esq. Anna S. McLean, Esq. Andre J. Cronthall, Esq. Jeffrey S. Crowe, Esq. Katherine C. Sample, 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: jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com amclean@sheppardmullin.com acronthall@sheppard.com jcrowe@sheppard.com ksample@sheppard.com STRADA SERVICES: Sued Over Use of Copper-Clad Steel Conductors -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON BRULE; TONI NICOLE BRULE; JHON WOODROW FATON; BRENT HARRISON LIMB; SARAH LOLITA LIMB; DEMETRIOS PAPAS; and PRISCILLA BEAL PAPAS, Plaintiffs v. STRADA SERVICES, LLC, f/k/a STRADA SERVICES INC., d/b/a STRADA ELECTRIC and STRADA ELECTRIC & SECURITY, a Delaware limited liability company, and JOSEPH HORATIO STRADA, JR., an individual, Defendants, Case No. 253061286 (Cir. Ct., Osceola Cty., Fla., July 22, 2026) arises from Strada's improper and unlawful use of copper-clad steel conductors as the grounding electrode conductor in new-construction residential homes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing supply-and-materials crisis to avoid delays, increase profits, and obtain a market advantage over other electrical contractors by completing projects more quickly than otherwise possible. Defendant Strada Services, LLC, f/k/a Strada Services Inc., d/b/a Strada Electric as well as Strada Electric and Security is a licensed electrical contractor performing large-scale residential installations across Florida. Defendant Joseph Horatio Strada, Jr. was Strada's primary qualifying agent, Chief Executive Officer, and President. Plaintiffs are natural persons who own new-construction residential homes in which Strada furnished and installed electrical work during the period August 1, 2020 through May 31, 2022. This is a civil class action for damages in excess of $5,000,000.00, excluding interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiffs allege that Strada (1) substituted copper-clad steel in place of lawful grounding electrode conductor ("GEC") materials to cut cost and gain speed; (2) concealed the substitution by relying on the wire's copper appearance and its burial/encasement, (3) submitted permit applications that ensured use of the lawful GEC materials; (4) instructed its employees to lie to building department officials about the GEC materials installed; (5) passed inspections that did not detect the substitution; (6) violated the National Electric Code and Florida Building Code; and (7) put homeowners at risk of fire, equipment damage, and costly remediation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael C. Kelley, Esq. Alex J. Fumagali, Esq. Aaron A. Holman, Esq. LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ, PLLC 111 West Jefferson Street, Suite 100 Orlando, FL 32819 Telephone: (407) 710-9950 E-mail: michael@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com alex.fumagali@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com aaron@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com ashley@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com kim@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com SUN LIFE ASSURANCE: Faces Dubin Suit Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ PETER DUBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07660 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is a class action for breach of contract to recover amounts that Defendant charged Plaintiff and the proposed class of policy owners in excess of amounts authorized by the express terms of their universal life insurance policies. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada, with its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario and its U.S. headquarters is in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts.[ According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims are supported by the written provisions of his policy, which are materially the same as those of other policies held by members of the proposed class. Unlike term or whole life policies, where costs are often encompassed within fixed premium amounts disclosed in advance, universal life policies provide for an "account value," which the policy owners funds with premium payments. Despite unambiguous language in Plaintiff's policy, which is a fully integrated insurance agreement, the Defendant has repeatedly breached and continues to breach the policy by determining monthly charges in a manner that is not authorized by the policy, and thus, the Defendant takes charges from Plaintiff's account value in excess of the amounts specifically permitted. The Defendant has caused material harm to Plaintiff and the proposed class by improperly draining monies they had accumulated in their policy accounts. These monies could be used to maintain the policies and avoid lapses. Every unauthorized dollar taken from policy owners is one less dollar that can be used to earn interest; pay future insurance charges; forgo future premium payments; take policy loans; or withdraw as cash, says the suit.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com perkins@stuevesiegel.com lange@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. David A. Hickey, Esq. SCHIRGER FEIERABEND LLC 6811 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 312 Overland Park, KS 66202 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 E-mail: schirger@SFlawyers.com feierabend@SFlawyers.com hickey@SFlawyers.com SUN LIFE: Geneset Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENESETT CORPORATION, as Trustee of the Genesett Trust Dated 10/23/01, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Case No. 1:23-cv-12276-AK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying Rule 23 class action. Lapse Protection Class: Owners of universal life (including variable universal life) insurance policies issued or insured by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada that contain a lapse protection feature and which set forth a table of lapse protection minimum monthly premiums, as listed in Appendix A.1 The Lapse Protection Class does not include and specifically excludes: -- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the foregoing; -- Anyone employed with Plaintiff’s counsel’s firms; and -- Any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family. In the alternative, the Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following state-specific class. The alternative class is proposed in lieu of the proposed Lapse Protection Class, if the broader multistate class is not certified. Put differently, if certification is denied for the Lapse Protection Class, the California Class is proposed, in the alternative, instead. California Class: All members of the Lapse Protection Class whose policies were issued in California (i.e., the state in which Plaintiff’s policy was issued), as listed in Appendix B. Plaintiff Genesett Corporation, as Trustee of the Genesett Trust Dated 10/23/01 requests that the Court appoint it as the class representative for the aforementioned Lapse Protection Class or alternative California Class and that Susman Godfrey L.L.P. be appointed as Class Counsel for the aforementioned class or alternative class. The Defendant is an affiliate of Sun Life Financial Inc. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UYBbYH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Halley W. Josephs, Esq. Connor Cohen, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq. Zach Savage, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com ccohen@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com - and - Emma Notis-McConarty, Esq. Peter E. Gelhaar, Esq. T. Christopher Donnelly, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2800 Facsimile: (617) 720-3554 E-mail: enm@dcglaw.com peg@dcglaw.com tcd@dcglaw.com SUN LIFE: Genesett Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Memorandum ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENESETT CORPORATION, as Trustee of the Genesett Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Case No. 1:23-cv-12276-AK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to submit its memorandum of law in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certain supporting exhibits. The Plaintiff's Memorandum and Exhibits 1, 6, 8, 10, and 11 attached to the Josephs Declaration ("Confidential Exhibits") disclose information Sun Life produced in this action and designated as Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. After filing this motion, the Plaintiff will file its Motion for Class Certification, its Memorandum, and the supporting Declaration of Halley W. Josephs and attached exhibits. The Defendant is an affiliate of Sun Life Financial Inc. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vn9sRu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Halley W. Josephs, Esq. Connor Cohen, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq. Zach Savage, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com ccohen@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com - and - Emma Notis-McConarty, Esq. Peter E. Gelhaar, Esq. T. Christopher Donnelly, Esq. DONNELLY, CONROY & GELHAAR, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 720-2800 Facsimile: (617) 720-3554 E-mail: enm@dcglaw.com peg@dcglaw.com tcd@dcglaw.com SUPER CENTER: Jimenez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Meat Cutters -------------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO AMEZCUA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC. d/b/a SUPERIOR GROCERS, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20702 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including 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, unlawful deductions from wages, 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. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants a meat cutter from February 2025 to November 2025. Super Center Concepts, Inc., doing business as Superior Grocers, is an owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores in California. [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 Email: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Vik@Jameshawkinsaplc.com SYNOPSYS INC: Court Consolidates Related Cases in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Eumi K. Lee entered an order consolidating the following cases as follows: "HYUNGJOON KIM, et al., v. SYNOPSYS, INC., et al., Case No. 25-cv-09410-EKL (N.D. Cal.)" "NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, et al., v. SYNOPSYS, INC., et al., Case No. 25-cv-10201-EKL (N.D. Cal.) " "CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. SYNOPSYS, INC., et al., Case No. 25-cv-11059-EKL (N.D. Cal.) " These putative class actions arise out of allegedly false and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 made by Defendant Synopsys, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. Synopsys offers electronic design automation software products that are used to design and test integrated circuits. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zC3I7T at no extra charge.[CC] TOLEDO EDISON: Dismissal of Mikulski 1099-DIV Class Action Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of Estate of Jerome R. Mikulski, Appellant, v. The Toledo Edison Company, Appellee, C.A. No. L-25-00183 (Ohio App.), Judge Charles E. Sulek of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County, affirmed the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed Mikulski's class-action complaint against The Toledo Edison ("TE"). Mikulski owned common shares of TE in 1985 and 1986. In 2002, he filed four separate class-action complaints against Toledo Edison, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ("CEI"), and Centerior Energy Corporation, alleging that the companies fraudulently inflated earnings and profits to classify shareholder distributions as dividends rather than returns of capital. As to TE, Mikulski alleged that $92 million in 1985 distributions and $45.6 million in 1986 distributions were improperly reported as entirely dividends when they should have been classified as 97% returns of capital. Mikulski sought to certify a class generally comprised of "All common shareholders of TE, and all beneficial owners of TE common shares, from January 1985 through April 1986, inclusive, who were issued, in either of the calendar years 1986 or 1987, a Form 1099-DIV or substitute therefor by TE or its agents reporting the tax status of distributions made by TE during either of the calendar years 1985 or 1986." It further sought to certify a subclass comprised of "All members of the class who were issued, in either of the calendar years 1986 or 1987, a Form 1099-DIV or substitute therefore by TE or its agents reporting the tax status of distributions made by TE during either of the calendar years 1985 or 1986, and who paid a state or federal income tax for either such year." After a lengthy delay caused by removal to federal court and a stay pending related cases in Cuyahoga County, the trial court certified the subclass but denied certification of the main class, finding that the Estate failed to establish an actual injury from the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, reversed the certification of the subclass and affirmed the denial of certification of the main class. As to the subclass, the court held that Mikulski failed to satisfy Civ.R. 23(B)(3)'s predominance requirement because there was no common evidence showing that all members suffered an injury or establishing their individual damages. A tax payment could not simply be presumed to constitute an overpayment. As to the main class, the Court held that Mikulski failed to establish standing based on an alleged informational injury from allegedly mischaracterized Forms 1099-DIV. Mikulski did not show that he relied on the allegedly erroneous information, paid more taxes because of it, or otherwise suffered a concrete injury. The possibility of IRS liability if a taxpayer were audited was also too speculative to constitute a concrete injury. The Court noted that the Eighth District had reached similar conclusions in an earlier case involving Mikulski and functionally identical class and subclass definitions, finding that individualized inquiries would be required to establish injury and damages and that receiving an allegedly mischaracterized tax form did not constitute a sufficient injury for standing or class-certification purposes. After class certification was denied, Mikulski voluntarily dismissed the case against TE and refiled it one year later. The proposed class in the new complaint was nearly identical to the class rejected in the earlier litigation, consisting of TE common shareholders and beneficial owners who held shares from Jan. 1, 1985, through April 29, 1986, and received Forms 1099-DIV or substitutes in 1986 or 1987 reporting the tax treatment of TE distributions made in 1985 or 1986. The proposed subclass is different, consisting of "all members of the Class who exchanged their TE common shares for common shares of Centerior in the merger that occurred on or about April 29, 1986 ("Merger")." The complaint alleged that TE's allegedly false Forms 1099-DIV caused the class and subclass three economic injuries: "the Inflated Dividend Injury, the Deflated Return of Capital Injury, and the Providing Property of a Materially Different Character than Represented Injury." The subclass was also alleged to have suffered a "Tax-Free Exchange Treatment Injury." The complaint claimed that these injuries occurred immediately when TE issued the allegedly false and fraudulent Forms 1099-DIV. TE moved to dismiss, arguing that Mikulski lacked standing because the alleged injuries were not concrete. In opposing the motion, Mikulski acknowledged that class members had allegedly suffered monetary losses from overpaid taxes but recognized that such losses could not be recovered through a class action because individualized issues would defeat the predominance requirement. He therefore removed those allegations from the complaint and instead relied on receipt of the allegedly incorrect Forms 1099-DIV as the injury, without alleging any monetary or financial loss. On July 11, 2025, the trial court granted TE's motion and dismissed the complaint, finding that none of Mikulski's four alleged injuries was sufficiently concrete to establish standing. Mikulski timely appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for lack of standing. He challenged the court's findings that the alleged Inflated Dividend and Deflated Return of Capital ("ROC") injuries were not concrete, that invasions of legally protected interests could not constitute concrete injuries, and that the alleged injuries from receiving property materially different from what was represented and from the alleged tax-free exchange treatment occurred immediately upon issuance of the Forms 1099-DIV. Judge Sulek explained that the central issue in all four assignments of error was whether Mikulski had standing to bring his class-action claims. He noted that the Eighth District had recently rejected the same arguments in a case involving functionally identical claims and proposed classes. The Sixth District agreed with and adopted that analysis, holding that Mikulski's receipt of allegedly incorrect Forms 1099-DIV in 1985 and 1986, regardless of how the alleged injury was characterized, did not constitute a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing. Judge Sulek therefore rejected Mikulski's assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Mikulski was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal under App.R. 24. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Judgment is available at https://lnk.ua/Y4mY0Qq8e. Eric H. Zagrans -- eric@zagrans.com -- and Dennis P. Barron -- DennisPBarron@aol.com -- for appellant. Peter B. Morrison -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Allen L. Lanstra -- allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- and Zachary Faigen -- zack.faigen@skadden.com -- for appellee. TOUCHSOURCE LLC: Curley Sues Over Leaked Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANNON CURLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOUCHSOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03429 (D. Colo., July 28, 2026) is a class action arising from the failure of the Defendant to protect sensitive personally identifiable information of its employees, including Plaintiff. The Defendant reported unauthorized access to its systems on March 13, 2026 which acquired the private information of Plaintiff and other employees. On July 6, the Defendant determined that Plaintiff's private information was removed from its network in connection with the data breach. The Defendant began notifying individuals affected by the breach on July 22. Plaintiff Curley is former employee of Defendant who provided her private information to Defendant as a requirement for employment. Touchsource is a technology company that provides digital display and wayfinding solutions, specializing in interactive directories, digital signage, and smart-space media for commercial real estate, healthcare, retail, and education. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mixon Suit Due May 6, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEM MIXON, TERRENCE LOGAN, RONALD SMITH, PAUL FLICK, MELISSA SINDONI, WHITNEY SEXTON, CLINTON MAYBERRY, CARL FOSTER, KEITH WOODALL, ROBERT REDMOND, ANDREW HALPNER, ANTHONY DE LOSADA, PATRICK TWYMAN, JAMES VEREEKE, STEPHEN DISCHINO, AND STEVE SNOWDEN INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01018-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an amended scheduling order as follows: The Court, after reviewing the Parties' Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (Dkt. #97), GRANTS the motion and enters this case-specific order which controls disposition of this action pending further order of the Court. The following actions shall be completed by the date indicated Event Deadline Mediation deadline: Aug. 31, 2027 Close of fact discovery: Dec. 17, 2026 Close of expert discovery: April 9, 2027 Date by which the Plaintiffs must May 6, 2027 file motion for class certification: Hearing on class certification and: July 22, 2027 dispositive motions: Motions in Limine: Aug. 19, 2027 Final pretrial conference : Sept. 28, 2027 Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sA4ypN at no extra charge.[CC] TRINITY DISTRIBUTION: Faces Rivas Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARTA M. ZAMORA RIVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., W.C. STAFFING INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20720 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide recovery periods, failure to pay minimum and straight wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately January 29, 2025, through December 24, 2025. Trinity Distribution, Inc. is a produce wholesaler in California. W.C. Staffing Inc. is a staffing company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq. Justin A. Wheeler, Esq. THE WHEELER LAW FIRM, APC 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 621-4988 Facsimile: (909) 621-4622 Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com TRON FOUNDATION: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clifford et al., v. Tron Foundation et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02804-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lehrburger entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule: The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion in support of class certification and to serve any supporting expert report(s) shall be August 14, 2026. In the event Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification and supporting expert reports on or by August 14, 2026, the parties shall submit a proposed order for the remaining class certification schedule, adjusting Defendants’ Opposition, Plaintiffs’ reply briefing, and all other deadlines accordingly. The Parties have agreed that a two-week delay to Plaintiffs' July 31, 2026, deadline to file their motion in support of class certification and supporting expert report(s) is appropriate to determine whether the Parties can, without the need for motion practice, resolve Plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery and whether any further extension to the briefing and expert schedule would be appropriate in light of any such additional discovery. On April 28, 2026, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiffs to file their motion in support of class certification and supporting expert report(s) by July 31, 2026. Tron provides software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V9oEXF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan Ari Goldstein, Esq. Oscar Shine, Esq. David A. Coon, Esq. SELENDY & GAY PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10104 E-mail: jgoldstein@selendygay.com oshine@selendygay.com dcoon@selendygay.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Dicke, Esq. Dean S. Kristy, Esq. Jennifer Bretan, Esq. Benjamin Kingsley, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 E-mail: jbretan@fenwick.com dkristy@fenwick.com mdicke@fenwick.com bkingsley@fenwick.com TYSON FOODS: De Roulhac Sues Over Unauthorized Data Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIRE DE ROULHAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-08379 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's installation and use of data broker and advertising platform software without consent which violates California Penal Code, the Trap and Trace Law, and duties under applicable common law. According to the complaint, Tyson Foods has installed and deployed the software of data brokers and social media/advertising companies on its website located at wttp://tysonbeefandpork.com to secretly collect data about website visitors, their devices, geolocations and activity to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track their internet browsing on an ongoing basis. Plaintiff de Roulhac is a resident of California who visited the website on October 17, 2025 and her identifying information by way of electronic impulse was sent to database software development Kits BlueKai and LiveRamp. Tyson Foods is the proprietor of http://tysonbeefandpork.com/,a website that offers processed food and other meat products, such as chicken, beef, and pork, as well as sale of its merchandises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Chu, Esq. Jaimee Hocker, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: pchu@taulersmith.com jhocker@taulersmith.com UDR INC: Uses Algorithmic Devices to Set Rent Levels, Romano Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRYANT ROMANO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UDR, INC.; and REALPAGE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 26-2-21396-8 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., July 6, 2026) alleges that the Defendants use algorithmic devices to set rents or occupancy levels that harms tenants. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Seattle Municipal Code (the "Code") prohibits the use of software that collects and analyzes certain residential rental information, and provides recommendations regarding rental prices, lease terms, or occupancy levels (i.e., "coordinating services"). Specifically, the Code prohibits "(1) collecting historical, anticipated, or contemporary prices, price changes, supply levels, occupancy rates, or lease or rental contract termination and renewal dates of residential dwelling units from two or more landlords, from private databases, or from public databases; and (2) analyzing or processing [that] ... information ... through the use of a system or software that utilizes an algorithmic or other automated process to provide recommendations regarding rental prices, lease renewal terms, or occupancy levels to more than one landlord." It is illegal for a software provider to give landlords software that pools data and recommends rental prices, lease renewal terms, or occupancy levels—and illegal for a landlord to pay for it. RealPage provided such software, and UDR used it at its Seattle properties. Despite this clear mandate, the Defendant has contracted with service provider RealPage for coordinating services, and Defendant RealPage provided coordinating services to two or more landlords, the suit alleges. UDR, Inc. is a self-administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns, operates, and develops apartment communities located nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cirpriani, Esq. EMERY|REDDY, PC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com ULTA BEAUTY: Martineau Sues Over ALPR Surveillance on Retail Stores ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN MARTINEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26STCV20679 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Automated License Plate Recognition Law and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of implementing an Automated License Plate Recognition ("ALPR") surveillance network to track every vehicle that enters and exits the parking areas serving its retail locations. According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to maintain the mandatory ALPR usage and privacy policy on its website despite this extensive tracking and data sharing. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff's and Class members' statutory right to transparency and informed consent is violated. Ulta Beauty, Inc. is an owner and operator of retail stores, with its principal place of business in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com UNILEVER UNITED: Court Strikes Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY KENT, et al., v. Unilever United States, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03660-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Spero entered an order striking stipulation of voluntary dismissal. The Court finds that the dismissal of the class claims in this case is subject to Diaz review to ensure that the interests of the putative class members are protected under Rule 23(e). Therefore, any subsequent request for dismissal must address the Diaz factors and provide information sufficient for the Court to determine whether dismissal of the case is collusive or prejudicial to the putative class and whether notice to all members of the putative class is required. Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1L9R2Z at no extra charge.[CC] UNIQURE NV: Scocco Securities Class Suit Dismissal Bid Due Sept. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- uniQure N.V. 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 29, 2026, that a securities class action complaint, captioned "Christopher Scocco v. uniQure N.V., et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 10, 2026. The complaint names the company, certain of its executive officers, and another party as defendants and is brought on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's ordinary shares between Sept. 24, 2025 and Oct. 31, 2025. It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by purported false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the company's Phase I/II study of AMT-130 and the timing of the potential Biologics License Application filing for AMT-130 and alleges that these purported misstatements and omissions resulted in harm to investors who acquired the Company's ordinary shares during the said period. On April 13, 2026, the court appointed the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the securities class action. On July 15, 2026, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, like the earlier-filed complaint, purports to assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's ordinary shares during the putative class period. The lead plaintiff sought unspecified damages allegedly caused by purported false and misleading statements and omissions with respect to the import and viability of data from the company's Phase I/II study of AMT-130 and available pathways to regulatory approval. The defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is currently due Sept. 14, 2026, and management intends to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. uniQure N.V. is a biotechnology company focused on developing gene therapies for patients with serious genetic diseases, leveraging its proprietary adeno-associated virus (AAV) platform. It is headquartered in the Netherlands and operates internationally, including significant activities in the United States. UNITED PARCEL: Saecho Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANDY SAECHAO, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02431-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 3, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move for an order certifying a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, for the following class: "All California employees of the Defendant who worked at any warehouse, package-handling, or distribution facility with a security screening process in one or more of the following job classifications: Loader/Unloader – Hub (H345); Preloader (O340); Loader/Unloader AM (O365); Loader/Unloader PM (O360); Art 22 Combo Ins/Ins (O473); Revenue Recovery Clerk (F452); PE Porter (M375); Hub Sorter (H325); Pickoff (H340); Sorter AM (O345); Primary Sorter (H330); Sorter PM (O350); Hub Porter (H375); HVD/LVD Sorter (H337); Package Center Specialist (O500); and Art 22.3 Porter/Helper (M310), from Jan. 24, 2021, through the date of class certification." The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) or, in the alternative, certify particular claims or issues under Rule 23(c)(4), appoint the Plaintiff's counsel, Joshua H. Haffner, Trevor Weinberg, and Samantha Salas of Haffner Law PC, to serve as counsel to the class, and authorize notice to the class of the pending action and its members' right to opt-out under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(c)(2)(B). UPS is a package-delivery company and operates warehouse and package-handling facilities throughout California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tPQcla at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Trevor Weinberg, Esq. Samantha Salas, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com tw@haffnerlawyers.com sc@haffnerlawyers.com UNITED STATES: Bid to Appoint Class Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FR. FABIÁN ARIAS, STEPHEN KELLY, LAURA MCCALLUM, DEBBIE NATHAN, DR. ZOEY PHILLIPS, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DAVID J. VENTURELLA, in his official capacity as the senior official performing the duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02130-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw and add a party and to appoint class counsel. The Plaintiffs may renew their request to add Ruiz by submitting the materials required by Local Civil Rule 15.1. Any renewed request concerning class certification or appointment of class counsel must comply with Rule 23 and the requirements identified in the June 22 Opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 73 and, to the extent the July 17 letter was administratively docketed as a motion, to terminate the motion event associated with Docket Number 85. The Court does not construe the motion as stating that Kelly wishes to relinquish his individual claims and the protection of the preliminary injunction regardless of how the Court resolves the other two requests. The Court therefore declines to grant his withdrawal in isolation. If Kelly wishes to withdraw as a plaintiff unconditionally, regardless of whether Ruiz is added or Kelly is appointed class counsel, he may file a separate motion under Rule clearly so stating. In addition, the Plaintiffs attached neither a clean proposed amended complaint nor a version showing the proposed changes. Without the proposed pleading, the Court cannot determine whether the requested amendment satisfies Rules 15, 20, and 21. The request to add Ruiz is therefore denied without prejudice to a properly supported motion complying with Local Civil Rule 15.1. The Defendants include U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General; GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; and EDWARD FORST, in his official capacity as Administrator of General Services. US Immigration is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gdaRyn at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 3, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE NEMETH-GREENLEAF, JASON JUDKINS, JON MICHEL, DONNA NEMETH, AND MICHAEL RIFER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00407-CRC (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification and class discovery: Event Deadline Initial disclosures: Aug. 31, 2026 Motions to add Parties or amend pleadings: Sept. 25, 2026 Motion for class certification: Feb. 3, 2027 Opposition to class certification: March 3, 2027 Reply in support of class certification: March 31, 2027 Hearing on motion for class certification: April 2027, Date TBD by the Court United States Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency responsible for managing the U.S. federal civil service. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=adNEj7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 919-5852 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com - and - Gregory McGillivary, Esq. Sara L. Faulman, Esq. John W. Stewart, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com slf@mselaborlaw.com jws@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Esq. James W. Harlow, Esq. Senior Trial Counsel, Esq. Pierce J. Anon, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 1100 L St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (771) 217-8184 Facsimile: (202) 616-8460 E-mail: pierce.anon@usdoj.gov james.w.harlow@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Peralta Suit ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOISES JAVIER AGUILAR PERALTA, et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS"), et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00337-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Morrison entered an order: -- Granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss; -- Denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion for provisional class certification; and -- Denying as moot the Defendants' motion in limine to exclude Professor Blair's testimony. The Plaintiffs have not sufficiently shown a likelihood that a future injury is certainly impending, that there is a substantial risk of future injury, or that they experienced past unlawful conduct with continuing, present adverse effects. Therefore, they do not possess standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief. "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Further, Plaintiffs have not shown an injury-in-fact, either through a certainly impending threat of future injury or a past injury with continuing adverse effects, that satisfies Article III’s requirements for forward-looking relief. The Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their claims. As such, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. For purposes of a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to provisionally certify a "Warrantless Arrests Class," defined as: "All persons who, since April 22, 2025, have been, or will be, arrested in this State for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained." Mr. Aguilar Peralta is Honduran citizen who came to the United States in 2023. Since arriving, he has lived in Ohio, and he applied for asylum based on his fear that he would be killed if he returned to his home country. Mr. Aguilar Peralta has a U.S. work permit and social security number. DHS is the principal agency that administers and enforces federal immigration laws in the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kVGck9 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Gontarz Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY M. GONTARZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Defense, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01396-RBW (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a class action. and -- Appointing (a) the Plaintiff as Class Representative and (b) Dechert LLP and the National Veterans Legal Services Program as Class Counsel. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order: 1. Certifying the following class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2): "All current and former members of a Reserve Component of the United States Armed Forces whose claims accrued within six years before the filing of this action, or will accrue during the pendency of this action, and who (a) were or will be separated from active duty following a period of active duty exceeding 30 days under any provision of law, including 10 U.S.C. section 12301(d), during a national emergency declared by the President of the United States or the United States Congress and (b) were or will be denied TAMP coverage on the ground that they were deemed ineligible as reflected in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System because their active duty service was not coded as “in support of a contingency operation" (or otherwise not coded, labelled, or characterized to satisfy DoD’s contingency operation eligibility screen). The Plaintiff submits that the present record—including materials properly subject to judicial notice—is sufficient to warrant class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and supporting declarations/exhibits the government reserves all rights to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Indeed, it is unnecessary to brief or decide that motion at this time, as the outcome of DOW’s ongoing review may make litigation of this case entirely unnecessary. Accordingly, Defendants propose that their deadline to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion be set for 30 days after their deadline to answer the Complaint, should the outcome of DOW’s review not moot this case, and understand that Plaintiffs consent to such an extension.” A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RBlVf2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Hanna, Esq. John ("Jay") Jurata, Jr., Esq. Nimisha Noronha, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-3440 E-mail: brian.hanna@dechert.com jay.jurata@dechert.com nimisha.noronha@dechert.com - and - Rochelle Bobroff, Esq. Esther Leibfarth, Esq. Matthew Handley, Esq. NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (202) 621-5677 Facsimile: (202) 223-9199 E-mail: rochelle@nvlsp.org esther@nvlsp.org matthew.handley@nvlsp.org UNWELL PRODUCTS: Faces Darr Suit Over Mislabeled Beverages ---------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN DARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNWELL PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01961 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2026) seeks monetary and injunctive relief against Defendant for violating the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and the common-law prohibition on fraud. In December 2024, the Defendant announced Unwell Hydration, a line of beverages it billed as delivering rapid hydration and focus and containing flavors and colors from only natural sources. The Defendant has since rebranded as Unwell Beverages, with an expanded product offering through Hydration Drinks, Protein Drinks, Energy Drinks, and Hydration Sticks. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently markets the products as containing "No Artificial Flavors" and being "Flavored with Other Natural Flavors." These claims appear on the products' front and side labels and across channels through which Defendant sells and markets them. These representations are allegedly both false and misleading. Upon information and belief, it is not possible that the products are made without artificial citric acid. In addition, the products contain sodium citrate, an artificial ingredient that imparts flavor, specifically tartness. The Defendant's false and misleading statements conceal these facts, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Strawberry Hydration Focus Drink from Target in or around June 2025. Unwell Products LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Los Angeles, California. The Company owns, manufactures, and markets the Unwell Beverages brand in partnership with Nestle USA, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law UPLEAD LLC: Bid to Modify Class Cert Scheduling Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Court entered an order denying the plaintiff's request to modify the scheduling order as to class certification. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate both that ex parte relief is justified and that he was diligent in meeting the Court's deadline, in large part because the Plaintiff has not established that the urgent need for the requested relief is not a crisis of his own making, the Court says. The Court may not modify the scheduling order where the Plaintiff has not "used the entire discovery period efficiently and could not have, with due diligence, sought to obtain the discovery earlier in the discovery period." That the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a "good faith extension" in early May 2026 does not generate additional good cause to modify the scheduling order. The Plaintiff needed to timely bring a motion to compel, instead of a delayed ex parte Application seeking to modify the Scheduling Order one week in advance of its class certification deadline. UpLead is a provider of B2B database and business contact data services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0KfQBj at no extra charge.[CC] USA: Birthright Citizenship Under 14th Amendment Upheld in Barbara ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. BARBARA, ET AL., Case No. 25-365 (U.S.), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of New Hampshire preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 and provisionally certifying a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship by the Order. The question presented is whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order provides that children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present here are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States--and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which uses the same language. Several parents filed suit, some in the name of their children, arguing that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA. The District Court agreed, provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship by the Order, and preliminarily enjoined the Order's enforcement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment. The Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The Court traced the Clause to the English common-law principle of jus soli, under which citizenship generally followed birth within a sovereign's territory, subject to narrow exceptions. It explained that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated that principle while repudiating Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to people descended from enslaved persons. The Court further held that "subject to the jurisdiction" refers to the United States' authority to govern people within its territory. Relying on Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court concluded that unlawfully or temporarily present parents remain subject to U.S. jurisdiction while in the country, and their U.S.-born children therefore receive citizenship at birth. It rejected arguments that citizenship depends on the parents' domicile or immigration status, finding no such limitation in the text or history of the Citizenship Clause. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment preliminarily enjoining enforcement of Executive Order No. 14160. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/pvHn6KC0w USAA LIFE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Kaiser Extended to Oct. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Geoffrey R. Kaiser v. USAA Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03409-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application for an extension of the deadline to submit a class certification motion. The following deadlines are adopted: -- The Plaintiff's submission of his class certification motion is extended until Oct. 5, 2026, opposition to be due on Nov. 6, 2026 and reply to be due on Nov. 20, 2026. The clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 74. USAA offers term, whole, and universal life insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=44KseH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Kaiser, Esq. KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C. 30 Broad St., 37th floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 338-9100 x317 Facsimile: (646) 607-9371 E-mail: kaiser@ksmlaw.com VANGUARD PARKING: Tehan Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE TEHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VANGUARD PARKING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02254-AHA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to hold class certification deadline in abeyance. The Plaintiff moves the Court to extend the deadline to file his motion for class certification, which LCvR 23-I(b) sets as 90 days after the filing of the Complaint in this action. The current deadline to move for class certification is Aug. 17, 2026. However, it is impracticable for the Plaintiff to move for class certification by that date, as the Defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, which will need to be resolved prior to class certification briefing, the suit says. In addition, due to the Defendant's pending motion, it is unlikely any class certification discovery will take place prior to the current class certification deadline. Good cause thus exists to hold the class certification deadline in abeyance pending resolution of the Motion and further order of Court, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action in D.C. Superior Court on May 19, 2026, after which it was removed to this Court on June 25, 2026. Vanguard is a private parking management and automated license plate recognition (LPR) enforcement company A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wn1bNi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St., NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: rchen@classlawdc.com VARONIS SYSTEMS: Move to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Due Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Varonis Systems 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 29, 2026, that on Jan. 7, 2026, the company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action captioned "Molchanov v. Varonis Systems, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that defendants made misrepresentations or omissions in public disclosures about the company's expected annual recurring revenue for fiscal year 2025 and its ability to convert existing self-hosted customers to its SaaS offering. These alleged misstatements were claimed to have occurred between Feb. 4, 2025 and July 29, 2025, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint further alleged that certain officers are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On July 17, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, extended the purported class period from the original complaint's period of Feb. 4, 2025 through Oct. 28, 2025 to a period of Feb. 4, 2025 through Feb. 3, 2026. The amended pleading also added additional alleged misrepresentations by defendants while keeping the substantive allegations substantially similar to those in the original complaint. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the putative class. Pursuant to a stipulation and order entered by the court on June 4, 2026, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due on Sept. 15, 2026. Additionally, on April 23, 2026, a shareholder derivative action was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the Company's directors and certain officers, captioned "Daks vs. Faitelson, et al.," in the Southern District of New York. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets against all individual defendants. It also asserts a claim for contribution under Section 10(b) and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act against certain officers. These claims are based on substantially the same events and disclosures that are the subject of the "Molchanov v. Varonis Systems, Inc. et al." putative securities class action. On June 3, 2026, the court entered a stipulation and order staying the derivative action pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the purported securities class action. As a result, further proceedings in the derivative case are currently paused. Varonis Systems Inc. is a cybersecurity and data protection company that focuses on safeguarding enterprise data stored on-premises and in the cloud. It provides software solutions that help organizations manage, monitor and secure critical information, including sensitive files, emails and other unstructured data. VENEZUELA: Discovery Deadline in Cavara Suit Extended to August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cavara et al., v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the following deadlines by 30 days: 1. The parties' deadline to complete discovery is extended from July 29, 2026, to Aug. 28, 2026, and the corresponding deadline to file a joint letter certifying that discovery has been completed, in accordance with the Report on Rule 26(f) Conference and Case Management Plan, is extended from July 22, 2026, to Aug. 21, 2026; 2. Venezuela's deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint and oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, from July 24, 2026, to Aug. 24, 2026; 3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of class certification and opposition to Venezuela's motion to dismiss, from Aug. 21, 2026, to Sept. 21, 2026; 4. Venezuela's deadline to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss, from Sept. 11, 2026, to Oct. 12, 2026. All requests for extension of these deadlines, including the current request, were made with Plaintiffs’ consent. The most recent request was made to seek input and approval on litigation strategy, and potential substitution of counsel, from the Venezuelan government, a process that has only recently been completed. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZfCIHC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dora Georgescu, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0186 Facsimile: (212) 237-0100 E-mail: ccardozo@velaw.com mantonelli@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VENTURA COUNTY: Paul Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW PAUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURA COUNTY RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC. dba TOPPERS PIZZA PLACE; J & S RESTAURANTS, INC.; TOPP END ENTERPRISES, INC.; RED FLASH, INC.; SHORT PANTS, INC.; FIRST JONKER HOLDINGS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21037 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from approximately February 2022 through approximately August 2023. Ventura County Restaurant Services, Inc., doing business as Toppers Pizza Place, is a restaurant owner and operator in California. J & S Restaurants, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator in California. Topp End Enterprises, Inc. is a restaurant operator in California. Red Flash, Inc. is a marketing and consulting firm in California. Short Pants, Inc. is a clothing company doing business in California. First Jonker Holdings, LLC is an active investment limited liability company based in Ventura, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. Philippe M.J. Gaudard, Esq. Shelby L. Miner, Esq. Joseph O. Marshall, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com pgaudard@blackstonepc.com sminer@blackstonepc.com jmarshall@blackstonepc.com VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Advances in MDL Driving Data Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, 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 29, 2026, that multiple putative class action lawsuits and related multidistrict litigation involving the collection and sharing of consumer driving data have been filed against the company As of April 19, 2024, various plaintiffs had filed a total of 20 separate putative class action lawsuits. Sixteen of these actions were brought against General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., and Verisk Analytics Inc. in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Central District of California, the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Alabama, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of South Carolina. Four additional lawsuits were filed against Hyundai Motor America and Verisk in the Central District of California and the District of New Jersey. All of these 20 putative class actions had been dismissed as of that date. The complaints generally allege that the auto manufacturer defendants collected consumers' driver behavior data through vehicle software, transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and Verisk then shared the data with auto insurance companies without the individuals' knowledge or consent. The plaintiffs in these actions seek certification of nationwide classes and subclasses of various state residents whose vehicle driving data was allegedly collected and shared with third parties without consent. They also seek actual, statutory, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs. On June 7, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all GM-related lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, creating "In Re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation," MDL Case No. 1:24-md-03115-TWT. The matters pending against Verisk in this MDL were voluntarily dismissed on Dec. 13, 2024. On the same date, a new putative class action, "Adam Dinitz, et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc.," Case No. 24-11157, was filed in the District of New Jersey federal court to encompass those dismissed matters and additional named plaintiffs. This was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Georgia to be part of the consolidated MDL proceeding. Also on Dec. 13, 2024, a related amended Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed in the MDL. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss plaintiffs' claims on April 14, 2025. On Oct. 2, 2025, several plaintiffs brought another lawsuit alleging similar claims against GM, OnStar, LexisNexis, and Verisk in "McBride, et al. v. General Motors, et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-02619-AJB-MMP. On Oct. 10, 2025, the McBride plaintiffs filed a Notice of Potential Tag Along, seeking transfer of their lawsuit to the MDL proceeding. The transfer order for McBride was finalized on Oct. 28, 2025, bringing that case into the MDL as well. On April 22, 2026, the court ruled on defendants' motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. On May 20, 2026, Verisk filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the court's ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss. Verisk also joined GM's and OnStar's motions for partial reconsideration and clarification relating to the court's decision on the motions to dismiss. Discovery in the consolidated MDL has commenced and remains ongoing, and at this time it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to these and other associated matters because they are still in their early stages. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a data analytics and technology provider serving the insurance, energy, and specialized markets with predictive analytics, risk assessment, and decision-support solutions. It offers clients data-driven tools and services to help manage risk, improve underwriting, and enhance operational performance worldwide. VERISK ANALYTICS: Discovery Advances in MDL Driving Data Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, 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 29, 2026, that it is facing multiple putative class action lawsuits and related multidistrict litigation involving the collection and sharing of consumer driving data. As of April 19, 2024, various plaintiffs had filed a total of twenty separate putative class action lawsuits. Sixteen of these actions were brought against General Motors LLC (GM), OnStar LLC (OnStar), LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (LexisNexis), and Verisk Analytics Inc. (Verisk) in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Central District of California, the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Alabama, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of South Carolina. Four additional lawsuits were filed against Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) and Verisk in the Central District of California and the District of New Jersey. All of these twenty putative class actions had been dismissed as of that date. The complaints generally allege that the auto manufacturer defendants collected consumers' driver behavior data through vehicle software, transmitted it to LexisNexis and Verisk, and that LexisNexis and Verisk then shared the data with auto insurance companies without the individuals' knowledge or consent. The plaintiffs in these actions seek certification of nationwide classes and subclasses of various state residents whose vehicle driving data was allegedly collected and shared with third parties without consent. They also seek actual, statutory, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs. On June 7, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) transferred all GM-related lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, creating "In Re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Litigation," MDL Case No. 1:24-md-03115-TWT. The matters pending against Verisk in this MDL were voluntarily dismissed on December 13, 2024. On the same date, a new putative class action, "Adam Dinitz, et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc.," Case No. 24-11157, was filed in the District of New Jersey federal court to encompass those dismissed matters and additional named plaintiffs. This was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Georgia to be part of the consolidated MDL proceeding. On Dec. 13, 2024, a related amended Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed in the MDL. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss plaintiffs' claims on April 14, 2025. On Oct. 2, 2025, several plaintiffs brought another lawsuit alleging similar claims against GM, OnStar, LexisNexis, and Verisk in "McBride, et al. v. General Motors, et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-02619-AJB-MMP. On Oct. 10, 2025, the McBride plaintiffs filed a Notice of Potential Tag Along, seeking transfer of their lawsuit to the MDL proceeding. The transfer order for McBride was finalized on October 28, 2025, bringing that case into the MDL as well. On April 22, 2026, the court ruled on defendants' motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. On May 20, 2026, Verisk filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the court's ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss. Verisk also joined GM's and OnStar's motions for partial reconsideration and clarification relating to the court's decision on the motions to dismiss. Discovery in the consolidated MDL has commenced and remains ongoing, and at this time it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to these and other associated matters because they are still in their early stages. Separately, the company is defending a putative data privacy lawsuit under New Jersey law. On Feb. 8, 2024, plaintiffs filed "Atlas Data Privacy Corp., et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc., et al.," in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Case No. MID-L-000903-24, alleging violations of Daniel's Law. Atlas claims to be an assignee of claims of approximately 19,640 individuals who are covered persons under Daniel's Law, which was enacted to allow certain judicial and law enforcement officers and their family members to prevent disclosure of their personal information and to enforce those rights against data brokers. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Daniel's Law by failing to respond to and comply with a written request to cease publicly disclosing or re-disclosing the covered persons' protected information. Plaintiffs seek actual damages of $1,000 per violation under the statute, punitive damages, injunctive relief ordering compliance with Daniel's Law, permanent injunctive relief including appointment of a qualified independent expert to ensure compliance, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. On June 21, 2024, the court issued a lack of prosecution warning to Atlas, advising that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if service was not effected by Aug. 20, 2024, and the case was dismissed without prejudice on Aug. 26, 2024. On Oct. 11, 2024, plaintiffs served Verisk with the summons and complaint, indicating their intent to revive the lawsuit. The company filed a motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, requested a stay of the case pending a ruling on the constitutionality of Daniel's Law by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a separate Atlas lawsuit. The New Jersey Attorney General's Office moved to intervene and also requested a stay pending a constitutionality decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a separate matter. The court issued an order staying all discovery until further order of the court. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a data analytics and technology provider serving the insurance, energy and specialized markets with predictive analytics, risk assessment, and decision-support solutions. It offers clients data-driven tools and services to help manage risk, improve underwriting, and enhance operational performance worldwide. VERTIV HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class and Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Vertiv Holdings 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 29, 2026, that it is facing consolidated class actions and derivative suits over its securities in New York and Delaware courts. Case "In re Vertiv Holdings Co Securities Litigation," (22-cv-3572) is a putative securities class action filed on May 3, 2022, in the Southern District of New York against Vertiv, certain of its officers and directors, and other defendants. The action concerns allegations that certain of the company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading with respect to inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and it asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 16, 2022, which maintains these theories of liability on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities that purchased Vertiv securities between Feb. 24, 2021 and Feb. 22, 2022, and/or purchased Vertiv securities in or traceable to the Nov. 4, 2021 secondary public offering by a selling stockholder pursuant to a resale registration statement. On Jan. 31, 2024, the court issued an order dismissing the claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act remains pending. On June 9, 2023, two Vertiv shareholders, Matthew Sullivan and Jose Karlo Ocampo Avenido, brought a derivative lawsuit, "Sullivan v. Johnson, et al.," C.A. No. 2023-0608 against Vertiv, as nominal defendant only, and certain of the company's directors and officers in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of fiduciary duty. On Nov. 19, 2024, another Vertiv shareholder, Laura Hanna, brought a separate derivative lawsuit, "Hanna v. Johnson, et al." against Vertiv, as nominal defendant only, and certain of the company's directors and officers in the same court, also alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints in these derivative actions allege that the named directors and officers caused the company to issue materially false and/or misleading public statements with respect to inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues and that the company suffered damages as a result. The Sullivan action has been stayed since Aug. 10, 2023, pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On Feb. 13, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order that consolidated the Sullivan and the Hanna actions into a single consolidated derivative lawsuit, "In re Vertiv Holdings Co. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," (Consolidated C.A. No. 2023-0608-NAC). The court designated the complaint in the Hanna Action as the operative complaint in the consolidated derivative action and stayed it on terms identical to those of the existing stay of the Sullivan action. Vertiv Holdings Co is a global provider of critical digital infrastructure technologies and life-cycle services for data centers, communication networks and commercial and industrial facilities. The company designs, manufactures and services power, thermal and IT management solutions that support vital applications around the world. WALT DISNEY: Duffield Suit Transferred From S.D.N.Y. to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case SUMMER CHRISTINE DUFFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY and DISNEY DTC LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04072, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 29, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01755-FWS-JDE to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for collecting the biometric information of Disney's theme parks without adequate consent in violation of privacy laws. The Walt Disney Company is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate, with its principal place of business located in Burbank, California. Disney DTC LLC is a corporate subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, with its principal place of business located in Burbank, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC Forest Hills Tower 118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 444 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 Email: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com WEINGART CENTER: Faces Clayborn Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELVA CLAYBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEINGART CENTER ASSOCIATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20678 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, failure to pay for all hours worked, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Weingart Center Association is a homeless service provider in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123, Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com WELLDYNERX LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hayes Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ROCHELLE HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLDYNERX, LLC d/b/a WELLDYNE, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-02101 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2026) arises out of Defendant's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of obtaining pharmacy benefits and prescription medication services from Defendant WellDyne, each member, patient, and dependent must provide (and Plaintiff did provide) Defendant WellDyne with sensitive, personal, and private information, such as their: Name, address, phone number, and email address; Date of birth; Social Security number; Marital status; Employer with contact information; Primary and secondary insurance policy holders' names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers; Demographic information; Driver's license or state or federal identification; Information relating to the individual's medical history; Insurance information and coverage; and Banking and/or credit card information. Defendant also creates and stores medical records and other protected health information for its patients, including records of prescriptions, medications, and treatments. On July 1, 2026, the threat actor "PayoutsKING" successfully breached WellDyne's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive member and patient data. While the Data Breach has been publicly reported by cybersecurity intelligence sources, Defendant has not yet provided direct, individual notice to the affected Class Members. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff seek to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief from Defendant. Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Rochelle Hayes received prescription medications through Defendant's pharmacy services and entrusted Defendant with her Private Information. Defendant WellDyneRx, LLC d/b/a WellDyne is a Florida limited liability company that provides pharmacy benefit management and related pharmacy services, with its principal place of business at 500 Eagles Landing Drive, Lakeland, Florida 33810.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 3396 Tampa, FL 33601-3396 Telephone: (813) 229-1118 Facsimile: (813) 221-6750 E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com - and - Ra O. Amen, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: ramen@masonllp.com WM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Deal in Ishak Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERET ISHAK, v. WM TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08959-ODW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright II entered an order. (1) conditionally approving class certification for purposes of settlement, (2) preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, and (3) approving the form and method of the parties' proposed Postcard Notice, Summary Notice, and Long Notice, conditioned on the prominent addition of WM’s logo on each. The Court appoints SCS as Claims Administrator and The Huntington National Bank as the Escrow Account. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Jan. 11, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. All Claim Forms, requests for exclusions, and objections must be postmarked or received by SCS no later than Oct. 30, 2026. No later than Nov. 6, 2026, the parties shall file with the Court any objections received or a notice that no objections were received. No later than Nov.16, 2026, Kang shall file with the Court a motion for final approval of the settlement. No later than Nov. 23, 2026, Counsel shall file the application for attorneys' fees and costs. Oppositions to either motion must be filed no later than Dec. 7, 2026. If any opposition is filed, either party may file a reply in support of any opposed motion no later than Dec. 14, 2026. As each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met, the class may be provisionally certified for settlement purposes. Kang alleges that WM provided investors with inflated metrics that wrongfully indicated company growth and monetization potential in violation of the Exchange Act. The parties define the proposed Settlement Class as "all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired WM Technology Securities between May 25, 2021, and Sept. 24, 2024, inclusive." In full settlement of the claims asserted in the lawsuit, WM agrees to pay $7,500,000 (the "Net Settlement Amount" or "NSA"). WM is a California-based company that operates an online cannabis marketplace and provides ecommerce and compliance software services for cannabis businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZIGEUe at no extra charge.[CC] YES COMMUNITIES: Class Settlement in O'Leary Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE O'LEARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. YES COMMUNITIES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00692-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Brimmer entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The class, defined as follows, shall be preliminarily certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: All living individuals in the United States who were sent notice by Defendant that their Private Information was impacted in the Data Incident. Michelle O'Leary, Teresa Starks, Terry Wilkins, Brenton Kay, and Jasmin Burns are appointed as Class Representatives. Jeff Ostrow, Raina Borrelli, Leigh S. Montgomery, Gary E. Mason, and Gary M. Klinger are appointed as Class Counsel. Analytics Consulting LLC is appointed as Claims Administrator. The plaintiffs shall file their motion for attorney's fees no later than 30 days before the final fairness hearing. The Defendant owns and operates manufactured housing communities in many states. A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=20pVqY at no extra charge.[CC] ZOETIS INC: Court Dismisses Hartney Class Suit with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHY HARTNEY, JENNIFER ROMOLO, KRISTIN JOHNSON, ASHLEY LEVERNEZ, DEBRA FLASKA, PRATIBHA PRINCE, ASHLEIGH BOHLMAN, and VINCENTA WOLFE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ZOETIS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09698-SDW-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an opinion granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice: The Plaintiffs have amended their complaint four times, and this Court has now twice dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs, given four opportunities, have failed to cure the deficiencies of the original complaint. The differences between the Third and Fourth Amended Complaints do not suggest that Plaintiffs are progressing in the direction of an actionable claim. Accordingly, it appears that permitting them to amend for a fifth time would be futile. Therefore, because amendment would be futile, the dismissal will be with prejudice. The putative class action arises from the administration of Librela, a monoclonal antibody marketed by Defendant for the control of osteoarthritis‑related pain in dogs. Eight Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed nationwide class, alleging that Defendant misrepresented Librela's safety, failed to warn veterinarians and pet owners about severe adverse events, and breached various statutory and common‑law duties. Zoetis is a global animal health company. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NacLmy at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***