260807.mbx

260807.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 7, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 157 Headlines 333 HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Molina Alleges 3M COMPANY: Protective Gears Contains Toxic PFAS, Suit Alleges A&B ELECTRIC: Faces Borno Negligence/Recklessness Suit in Del. ACRES LAND: Court Tosses RESPA Claim in "Salmon" as Time-Barred ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Bid to Exclude Bradford's Opinions Tossed ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: Wins Dismissal of "Grohol" AHS MANAGEMENT: Websites Use Tracking Technologies, Borrett Alleges AMAZON.COM INC: Sangha Files Suit Over IEEPA Tariff Refunds ANTHROPIC PBC: Patel Sues Over Diminished Claude Access Services APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Cass Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 8, 2027 AUCTION.COM LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Del Salto Says BALDWIN INSURANCE: Delaware High Court Reverses $2.4M Fee Award BH SECURITY: Fails to Secure Private Info, Bell Alleges BILTWELL CUSTOM: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BOWLOUNGE LLC: Maliszewski Seeks Collective Action Certification BRIDGEWAY BENEFIT: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Williams Says CALIBER HOLDINGS: Morales Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Nkamga Files Suit Over Share Price Drop CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Hunter Labor Suit Removed to Cal. Super. CENTIER BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marshall Alleges CHATTEM INC: Personal Care Products Contain Allergens, Porcuna Says CHURCH AID: Hall Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COINBASE GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Narrows Underwood Securities Suit CROCS INC: Carretta Securities Class, Derivative Suits Filed DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Faces Williams Suit Over Compromised Info DG BUYER: Young Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Online Store FLAGSTONE FOODS: Xavier Sues Over "No Artificial Flavors" Labels FOOD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Declaration in "Enguerra" G6 HOSPITALITY: Hotel Rooms Used for Sex Trafficking, Suit Says GATEWAY CHURCH: Leach Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bueno Appeals Alter Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit GESTAMP WEST: Williams FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. GUTHRIE CLINIC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Waters Says HARCROS CHEMICALS: Garner Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 10th Cir. HERCULES CAPITAL: Class Claims Dismissed, Derivative Suit Stayed HOME DEPOT: Moystad False Email Suit Removed to D. Md. JAS TLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Alleges JCS PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says JOY'S DELI GROCERY: Casado Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LAS VEGAS, NV: Faces Wirey Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Nev. LASERAWAY LLC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Wong Suit to 9th Cir. LENTIFUL LLC: Keene Files Mislabeling Suit Over Lentiful Products LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lavallee Says LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Scothorne Files Suit Over Data Breach LOANCARE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Tederick" MARY AND JANE LLC: Navarrete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARYLAND: Appeals Approved Class Cert. in Palmer Suit to 4th Cir. META PLATFORMS: Daigneau Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit META PLATFORMS: Irving Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: $53M Antitrust Settlement Awaits Final Nod MOELIS & CO: Claims in Delaware SPAC Class Suit Narrowed MONSANTO COMPANY: Morrell Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOSAIC COMPANY: Toenjes Suit Transferred to D. Kansas MSS BEAUTY INC: Thomas Sues Over Blind Inaccessible-Website NAILS ART: Garay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL: Rosalez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit NELSON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Yzquierdo Says NIPPON SANSO MATHESON: Stallworth Sues Over Unpaid Overtime NRG ENERGY: Banks Wage and Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Peele Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. OREGON: Appeals Tossed Reconsideration Bid in S.D. Suit to 9th Cir. PARK HA BIOLOGICAL: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Thomas Says PAZ J: Ramos Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PENTWATER CAPITAL: Hakimian Sues Over Unfair Stock Trading PLUMBING SUPPLY: Pardo Seeks Equal Property Access to Disabled POINT6 LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Faces Suit Over Drop in Share Price QVC GROUP: Gui Appeals Denied Motion to Stay Order to 5th Circuit RTX CORP: Owoseni Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info RTX CORP: Toles Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info SCHECK MECHANICAL: Wallis Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages SECURITAS CRITICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Alleges SPECIALIZED LANDSCAPE: Barrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STABLECOIN DEVELOPMENT: Class Suit Mooted, $225K Fee Deal Reached SUNO INC: Rugnetta Files Suit Over Data Breach SUPER MICRO: Patel Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to 9th Circuit T-MOBILE USA: Miner Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty TASKUS INC: Court Partly Denies Bid to Dismiss "Estrada" TITLE BOXING: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TOMY INTERNATIONAL: Polino Sues Over Mislabeled Toddler Tower TOUCHSOURCE LLC: Faces Nguyen Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info TRUESTAGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Collette Says TRUGOLF HOLDINGS: LaChance Sues Over Securities Sale Scheme TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Turner Sues Over Compromised Personal Info UNITED PARCEL: Anderson Wage and Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. UNITED STATES: Appeals Termination Date Extension Order to 4th Cir. UNITED STATES: Smith Appeals Court Order to the Federal Circuit UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Tracks Patients' Private Info, Niesen Says UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Patterson Says UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Matlock Says VALVOLINE US RETAIL: Removes Perri Suit to E.D. Mich. VERIDA INC: Walker Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages VOLUME SERVICES: Wilson Sues Over Work Discrimination, Retaliation WEWORK INC: Price Sues Over Data Privacy Violations WISE COMPANY: Becker Files Suit Over Unpaid Termination Wages YAMADA NORTH: Conditional Class Cert. Filing Due Jan. 8, 2027 YOULEND US: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kirakosyan Alleges ZANDER GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit ZULILY LLC: Smith Wins Class Certification Bid ZUMBA FITNESS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by August 10 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Has 3,513 Pending Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Insurance Still Defends A&E Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J offers $5.5BB to Settle Talc Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends PI Lawsuits ********* 333 HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Molina Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 333 HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC, d/b/a CESAR; CESAR RAMIREZ; and ADRIANA RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06329 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Molina was employed by the Defendants as an expediter. 333 Hospitality Group LLC is a construction company based in New York, NY and specializes in design and engineering. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 3M COMPANY: Protective Gears Contains Toxic PFAS, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF LIPSCOMB FIRE DEPARTMENT, LIPSCOMB, ALABAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); EIDP, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; CB GARMENT, INC.; ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MAJESTIC FIRE APPAREL, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING L.L.C.; MSA SAFETY COMPANY, INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and VIKING LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT (AMERICA), INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01309-SGC (N.D. Ala., July 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class purchased and used the Defendants' specialized occupational personal protective equipment ("PPE") including, self-contained breathing apparatuses, hoods, helmets, coats, pants, gloves, boots, reflective tape, and other multilayered PPE ("Turnout Gear"), which are laden with highly toxic, carcinogenic, synthetic perfluorinated, and polyfluorinated alkyl substances ("PFAS"). The Defendants' PFAS Turnout Gear have released, and continue to release, toxic PFAS that contaminate Class Members' firehouses and trucks and are absorbed, inhaled, and ingested by Lipscomb's Fire Department and other Class Members' firefighters and accumulate in their bodies, resulting in unreasonable toxic exposure known to cause cancer, disease, and other harmful health conditions, says the suit. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Starr Culpepper, Esq. CULPEPPER & ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 145 Lipscomb, AL 35006 Telephone: (205) 529-9413 Email: starr@culpepper.law - and - Shelby Yarbrough, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BARRETT & YARBROUGH, LLC P.O. Box 55811 Birmingham, AL 35255-8511 Telephone: (205) 470-3136 Email: shelby@bylegalservices.com A&B ELECTRIC: Faces Borno Negligence/Recklessness Suit in Del. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN K. BORNO, HANS LEMONIER, and EMMANUEL GUSTIN, Plaintiffs v. PARKER J. BAST, ALAN B. WARREN, and A&B ELECTRIC, INC. Defendants, Case No. S26C-07-023 RHR (Del., Super., July 31, 2026) is a class action arising from the collision of the vehicles driven by Plaintiff Borno on November 19, 2025. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Borno's vehicle was in complete stop on Norman Eskridge Highway waiting to enter the merge area lane when it collided with Defendant Bast's vehicle while making a right turn onto Sussex Highway from Norman Eskridge Highway. Defendant Bast admitted that he did not see the stopped vehicle as he was looking the other way and it was clear. Plaintiff Borno is a resident of Delaware and owner of the 2024 Honda HR-V vehicle. Defendant Bast is an employee of A & B Electric Co. and the driver of the 2023 Ford Transit Connect owned by A & B Electric Co. Defendant Bast owed a duty to Plaintiffs, as well as others on the roadway similarly situated, to drive his vehicle in a reasonably prudent manner including maintaining a proper lookout, maintaining appropriate speed, and/or not to engage in risky actions such as driving forward while his eyes were elsewhere, says the suit. A & B Electric Co., Inc. was founded in 1986. The company's line of business includes providing electrical work and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andres Gutierrez de Cos, Esq. ANDRES DE COS LLC 5211 West Woodmill Drive, #36 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 444-8085 Facsimile: (302) 444-8065 Email: andres@gutierrezdecos.com ACRES LAND: Court Tosses RESPA Claim in "Salmon" as Time-Barred --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Scott D. Salmon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acres Land Title Agency, Inc., Absolute Escrow Settlement, Co, Inc., Peter A. Uzzolino, Defendants, No. 24-cv-9305 (MEF) (LDW) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's RESPA claim. This is a putative class action brought by a homeowner who sued a title insurance company, an affiliate, and the owner of the companies, alleging that he was charged illegal fees in connection with his mortgage closing. The Plaintiff's initial complaint pressed two state-law claims and a federal claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Earlier in the litigation, the Court dismissed the federal claim on the merits. The Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, and the Defendant again moved to dismiss, arguing that the current RESPA claim was time-barred. The Plaintiff's RESPA claim was brought under Section 8(b), which is subject to a one-year limitations period that runs from the date of the occurrence of the violation. The parties essentially agreed that the occurrence of the alleged violations was no later than the closing date for the home purchase, which took place on April 29, 2022. Because the initial complaint in this case was not filed until September 2024, the RESPA claim appeared to be time-barred. The Plaintiff argued that his claim should nevertheless be allowed to go forward under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. The doctrine of fraudulent concealment operates to stop the statute of limitations from running when the accrual date of a claim has passed but the cause of action has been obscured by the conduct of the Defendant. The Court noted that it is a rare and extraordinary remedy. The Plaintiff had the burden of proving fraudulent concealment, which required showing: (1) that the Defendant actively misled the Plaintiff; (2) that this prevented the Plaintiff from recognizing the validity of the claim within the limitations period; and (3) that the Plaintiff's ignorance was not attributable to a lack of reasonable due diligence in attempting to uncover the relevant facts. The Court found that the Plaintiff did not carry his burden. Allegations of fraudulent concealment must meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and be pleaded with particularity. A Plaintiff must allege the date, time, and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of substantiation into the fraud allegation. The Court found the Plaintiff did not adequately allege that the Defendant actively misled him. Active misleading required a showing that the Defendant took affirmative steps to mislead the Plaintiff with respect to the claim, which generally required some act on the part of the Defendant that was distinct from the underlying wrong. The current complaint focused on allegations that the Defendant marked up certain costs when it charged the Plaintiff fees in connection with his home closing. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the invoice he received revealed that apparent markups were made regarding charges for Tax and Assessment Searches, a Flood Hazard Certificate, a Tidelands Search, and a Settlement Fee. The Plaintiff alleged that the fees were marked up and divided between the Defendant and third-party vendors, and that the marked-up portion of the fees did not represent services actually performed. The Court held these allegations spoke to the alleged RESPA violations themselves, not any affirmative acts on the part of the Defendant that were intended to mislead the Plaintiff into thinking that the charges had no baked-in markups. Conclusory allegations that customers are almost invariably unaware of the inherently deceptive markups and fees were not enough. To survive a motion to dismiss, a Plaintiff must plead fraudulent concealment with particularity and shed light on the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud. The Court further concluded that the Plaintiff's reliance on prior case law suggesting that misrepresenting material facts in settlement statements could qualify as acts of fraudulent concealment had no bearing on the case. The Plaintiff in this case did not point to any particular regulations or laws that dictated what must be reflected on the face of an invoice. Nor did the Plaintiff allege that the Defendant represented that the invoice or final payment schedule would not reflect any markups or extra service fees. To the contrary, the Plaintiff alleged that the invoice he received revealed that apparent markups were made. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted as to the RESPA claim. The Court found the claim came too late and was time-barred. The Plaintiff was ordered to file a letter indicating whether he intended to seek leave to file an amended complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5BPOKs from PacerMonitor.com ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: Bid to Exclude Bradford's Opinions Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUMANA INC. v. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03299-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Rufe entered a judgment that the Defendants' joint motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. W. David Bradford will be denied. In sum, Dr. Bradford took adequate steps to review a capacious record given the nature of his assignment. This was enough to make his analysis reliable. In this multidistrict litigation concerning alleged price-fixing of generic drugs, the Court selected Plaintiff Humana Inc.’s 2018 action (Humana I) as the first bellwether case to involve a Direct-Action Plaintiff (DAP). This Humana I Opinion resolves Defendants' joint motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. W. David Bradford. In total, Defendants have jointly moved to exclude the opinions and testimony of five of Humana’s experts: Dr. W. David Bradford, Dr. William B. Vogt, Dr. Richard G. Frank, Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim, and Ms. Stacy M. Arruda. Humana in turn seeks to exclude the opinions and testimony of two defense experts: Mr. Khody R. Detwiler and Dr. Bonny Levin Actavis produces and manufactures a wide assortment of generic drug products. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qZlKfP at no extra charge.[CC] ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: Wins Dismissal of "Grohol" ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lori Grohol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, et al., Defendant, Civil No. 4:26-CV-01437, Judge Jennifer P. Wilson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice and closed the case. Plaintiff, through counsel, filed the original complaint on May 26, 2026. The pleading ran 922 pages with 3,389 numbered paragraphs and 28 claims, and named over 150 defendants. On June 9, 2026, Judge Karoline Mehalchick screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it without prejudice for failing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)'s short and plain statement requirement, calling the pleading the antithesis of short and plain. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 17, 2026. The amended complaint did not cure the defect. It grew to 970 pages, retained 3,389 paragraphs and 28 claims, and added Judge Mehalchick, Doe Law Clerks, and the district court itself as defendants. The court found the amended pleading suffered the same material defect and placed an unwarranted and unreasonable burden on the court and defendants. Because Plaintiff was represented by counsel and already had one opportunity to cure, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, finding further leave to amend would be futile. Since filing the amended complaint, Plaintiff filed 12 additional motions. The court dismissed the motions for temporary restraining orders and the motion for summary judgment because no operative complaint existed to support them. Three remaining motions, including one seeking recusal of legal profession decisionmakers, were deemed withdrawn under Local Rule 7.5 for lack of a timely supporting brief. Plaintiff had filed a notice of appeal from the June 9, 2026 orders, including the order dismissing her original complaint. The court proceeded to resolve all outstanding matters notwithstanding the docketed appeal because Plaintiff had expressly opposed a stay of the case in her notice of appeal. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=otgzrq from PacerMonitor.com AHS MANAGEMENT: Websites Use Tracking Technologies, Borrett Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA BORRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., D/B/A ARDENT HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01089 (M.D. Tenn., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its illegal and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and putative class members' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI" and, collectively with PII, "Private Information") to third parties, including but not necessarily limited to Google, LLC and AdTheorent Health. The complaint relates that Ardent, through the hospital affiliates it manages, encourages patients to use the Websites -- https://lovelace.com https://hillcrest.com https://bsahs.org https://mountainsidemedicalcenter.com https://pascackmedicalcenter.com https://portneuf.org https://kutopeka.com https://uthealtheasttexas.com and setonharkerheights.net -- for booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options, signing up for events and more. Plaintiff and members of the putative class who visited and used Defendant's Websites understandably thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare providers. Unbeknownst to the Users, however, Defendant embedded various third-parties' tracking technologies on the Websites, including but not limited to, Google DoubleClick, Google Analytics, and the AdTheorent Pixel (collectively, "Tracking Tools"). The Tracking Tools automatically transmit to third parties every click, keystroke and detail about Users' medical treatment. Defendant utilized the Tracking Tools for marketing purposes to bolster its profits; that is, despite its duty to maintain the privacy of its Users' Private Information, Defendant prioritized its own desire for profit over the privacy rights of patients. Neither Plaintiff nor any other Class Member was provided, much less signed, a written authorization permitting Defendant to disclose their Private Information to third parties. As a result, Users suffered injury and are entitled to relief, including statutory damages, any profits made by Defendant as a result of the violations, restitution and disgorgement of the benefits Defendant unjustly obtained, and injunctive relief to prevent continued unauthorized disclosures of their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff therefore seeks, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert statutory claims against Defendant for: (i) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and (ii) unjust enrichment under Tennessee common law. Plaintiff Melissa Borrett has been a patient of Lovelace Health System since at least July 2024 and has maintained a Google account since 2020. Defendant AHS Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Ardent Health Services provides centralized management and administrative services to a network of Ardent-affiliated hospitals and healthcare locations, which includes 30 hospitals and 285 sites of care across six States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW 2901 Dobbs Ave. Nashville, TN 37211 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Michael J. Casas, Esq. Gillian Kimmons, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-233-1550 Facsimile: 312-233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com gkimmons@stephanzouras.com AMAZON.COM INC: Sangha Files Suit Over IEEPA Tariff Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------- PARVEEN SANGHA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01777 (N.D. Ohio, July 29, 2026) seeks to force Amazon to return funds collected from millions of consumers to cover the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") tariffs between February 2025 and February 2026. The complaint relates that Amazon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariffs from consumers by raising prices on imported goods and U.S.-sourced goods while the tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under IEEPA were in effect. Subsequently, a refund process was set in place by the federal government when the United States Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs. The complaint notes that Amazon shifted the cost of these tariffs to its customers by way of price increases to products subject to tariffs and items not subjected to tariffs, making Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers those who truly bore the tariff costs. Amazon has not returned any portion of those costs it passed on to consumers, and it has no intention of doing so, the complaint adds. It has, in short, generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers -- not Amazon -- are the ones left paying for it, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a judgment that requires Amazon to return to Plaintiff all IEEPA duties passed on to customers with interest. Plaintiff also seeks restitution of the tariff and tariff-related fee overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Amazon recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Fuller, Jr., Esq. FARRELL & FULLER LAW 270 Munoz Rivera Ave. Ste. 201 San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: 939-293-8244 Facsimile: 939-293-8245 E-mail: mike@farrellfuller.com ANTHROPIC PBC: Patel Sues Over Diminished Claude Access Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONEAL PATEL and LAUREN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANTHROPIC, PBC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07837 (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and quasi-contract and restitution based on unjust enrichment. The case arises from Anthropic's retention of subscription fees despite backend changes and production defects that materially reduced subscribers' practical access to Claude, its flagship artificial-intelligence platform. As a result, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Claude subscribers paid more for their subscriptions than the diminished services they received were worth. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek to recover the economic value Anthropic retained while providing materially diminished paid access, and to obtain appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief. Anthropic, PBC is a software developer based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (771) 474-1121 Email: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Michael A. Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Email: macciavatti@milberg.com APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Cass Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 8, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSA NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and ROES 1 through 100 inclusive, v. APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-06829-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving their stipulation, and continuing the discovery cutoff and expert disclosure and cutoff deadlines as follows: -- Dec. 15, 2026: Expert designation cutoff; -- Dec. 30, 2026: Discovery cutoff; -- Jan. 8, 2027: Motion for class certification filing deadline; -- Jan. 22, 2027: Opposition to motion for class certification filing deadline; -- Jan. 29, 2027: Reply in support of motion for class certification filing deadline; -- Feb. 26, 2027: Hearing on motion for class certification The parties agree that the Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced as a result of the Defendant's production taking much longer than expected and ordered, the suit asserts. The case is a putative class action that was originally filed in state court on Dec. 8, 2022, and was removed to this Court on Sept, 27, 2024. AMC is an apartment management company focused on best-in-business property performance. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EgBRX0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 3555 5th Avenue, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 238-4720 Facsimile: (619) 238-5260 E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: R. Ernest Montanari, Esq. Michelle C. Jackson, Esq. Trevor B. Mccann, Esq. COLLINS & COLLINS LLP 2175 N California Boulevard, Suite 835 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (510) 844-5100 Facsimile: (510) 844-5101 AUCTION.COM LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Del Salto Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER DEL SALTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUCTION.COM, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-07912-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant to prevent it from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages for Defendant's violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The complaint relates that when users visit the Website https://www.auction.com Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google, Amplitude, Gstatic, Datadog, OneTrust, Equalweb, Cookielaw, Shape Security and Integral Ad Science (the "Trackers") to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. Defendant then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the Website, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers trying to sell the same or similar product to the user over and over and over again. Because the Trackers intercept information about the Website visitors' interactions with the Website, the Trackers constitute unlawful wiretapping under the ECPA and CIPA. By installing and using the Trackers without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages for Defendant's violation of the ECPA and CIPA. Plaintiff Alexander Del Salto was in California when he visited the Website. Defendant Auction.Com, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company owns and operates the https://www.auction.com website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. Mark Potter, 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 E-mail: classactions@potterhandy.com BALDWIN INSURANCE: Delaware High Court Reverses $2.4M Fee Award --------------------------------------------------------------- Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that. on June 9, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery with respect to both its decision and the Fee Award and remanded to the Court of Chancery to determine an award of attorneys' fees that reflects the modest benefit the company's stockholders may have achieved due to the circumstances leading up to the 2024 Stockholders Agreement, which has since sprung into effect, replacing in its entirety the 2019 Stockholders Agreement. This is with regard to a class action lawsuit that was filed by a Ruby Wagner, a putative Class A stockholder, challenging the validity of certain provisions in the company's 2019 Stockholders Agreement, which led to the replacement of the 2019 Stockholders Agreement with a 2024 Stockholders Agreement. The case was filed on Feb. 8, 2023, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the 2019 Stockholders Agreement between the company and the Pre-IPO LLC Members were invalid and unenforceable as a matter of Delaware law. On May 28, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion holding that certain provisions of the 2019 Stockholders Agreement granting approval rights related to amending the company's certificate of incorporation and making significant decisions relating to the company's senior management were facially invalid, void, and unenforceable under Delaware law. An implementing order was entered on June 20, 2024. The Chancery Court opinion also held that a severability provision in the 2019 Stockholders Agreement allowed the Pre-IPO LLC Members to demand a suitable and equitable substitute for the approval rights that were deemed invalid, such as the issuance of a so-called golden share of preferred stock in the Company. Following the Chancery Court opinion, a counterparty to the 2019 Stockholders Agreement requested the issuance of such a golden share. An independent committee of the company's board of directors, advised by independent counsel, determined that entering into a contractual agreement containing substantially the same rights as those contained in the 2019 Stockholders Agreement, as authorized by a newly enacted provision of Delaware law, rather than issuing a golden share, would be in the best interests of the company and its stockholders. Following negotiation, the Company entered into the 2024 Stockholders Agreement on Oct. 30, 2024. On Jan. 22, 2025, the Court of Chancery granted plaintiff an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2.4 million, and on Feb. 21, 2025, the company filed an appeal from the Chancery Court opinion and the Fee Award with the Delaware Supreme Court. Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. is an insurance distribution and financial services firm that offers a range of property and casualty, employee benefits, and personal insurance products. It operates through a network of agencies and advisors serving commercial and individual clients across the United States. BH SECURITY: Fails to Secure Private Info, Bell Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- SHANDON BELL, 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-2538 (N.D. Tex., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII" or the "Private Information") of its current and former customers and employees, which was entrusted to Defendant. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the other Class members are current and former customers and employees of Defendant who entrusted Defendant with their extremely sensitive and highly valuable Private Information, which Defendant acquired and maintained in the course of providing them services and/or employment. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for ensuring the safety and security of Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information and for protecting such Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration. On July 22, 2026, Brinks reported that it had experienced a cyberattack on its computer networks. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and at least tens of thousands of other individuals, including but not necessarily limited to their Private Information. Due to Defendant's flawed security measures and Defendant's incompetent (and perhaps even nonexistent) response to the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members now face a present, substantial, and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, and must deal with that threat for years to come, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek damages, including restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, and any other awardable form of damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff Shandon Bell is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant BH Security, LLC d/b/a Brinks Home is a residential security company providing smart home automation and professional alarm monitoring services throughout the United States.[BN] 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 E-mail: calvarez@straussborrelli.com BILTWELL CUSTOM: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BILTWELL CUSTOM MOTORCYCLE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06291 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.biltwellinc.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Biltwell Custom Motorcycle Corp. is a manufacturer of motorcycle parts, accessories, and riding gear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BOWLOUNGE LLC: Maliszewski Seeks Collective Action Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MALISZEWSKI, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BOWLOUNGE, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00333-BN (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as follows: "All current and/or former employees of Bowlounge, LLC who worked as servers and/or bartenders for Bowlounge, LLC at any time between Feb. 8, 2024 and July 1, 2026 who were paid on a tipped and tip-credit hourly basis (hereafter the "Putative Collective Action Members")." The Plaintiff presents the Court with the following exhibits concerning notice to the Putative Collective Action Members, which are unopposed by Defendant: a. Proposed Notice to the Putative Collective Action Members, b. Proposed Consent to Join Form ("CTJ"), and c. Proposed Client Data Sheet. The Plaintiff also asks that the Court approve the Notice, CTJ, and Client Data Sheet attached as exhibits to the Appendix in support of this Motion. Client Data Sheets returned by Putative Collective Action Members are attorney-client privileged documents that should not be filed with the Court or provided to the Defendant. Bowlounge is a restaurants company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=djicZi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com BRIDGEWAY BENEFIT: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIDGEWAY BENEFIT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02938-EA (D. Md., July 28, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on March 5, 2026. The unauthorized access of Defendant's systems lasted until May 19, 2026, spanning over two months. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII were compromised: Names and Social Security numbers. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. But the size of the putative class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody and control. And yet, Defendant waited over until July 24, 2026, before it began notifying the class, a full 141 days after the Data Breach began. In the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails. Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of her PII which violates her rights to privacy, says the suit. Plaintiff Veronica Williams is a current union member of a client of Defendant and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Bridgeway Benefit Technologies, LLC provides software that union benefit funds and their administrators use to manage members' health, pension, eligibility, claims, and contribution information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and = Brittany Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market Street, Ste 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: bresch@straussborrelli.com CALIBER HOLDINGS: Morales Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ORLIN MORALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly, and as an aggrieved employee and Private Attorney General, Plaintiff v. CALIBER HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV29833, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 31, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08501 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay all overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff, the Class, and the Aggrieved Employees for they were required to perform work off the clock, and it implemented policies that prohibited them from accurately recording the actual time worked that resulted to non-payment of wages. Caliber Holdings LLC provides automotive services including collision repair and auto glass repair and replacement. The Company offers specialized solutions for individual vehicle owners and fleet operators. Caliber Holdings LLC serves customers across the United States.[BN] The Defendants is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Nancy Nguyen, Esq. Hailey A. Phelan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: (714) 830-0600 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com hailey.phelan@morganlewis.com CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Nkamga Files Suit Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN NGASSEU NKAMGA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS, INC., LINDA MARBAN, ANTHONY J. BERGMANN, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04385-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for making materially false and/or misleading statements, and for failing to disclose that their securities were traded at artificially inflated prices. The complaint relates that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company adopted changes to the pre-specified statistical analysis plan used to analyze clinical data for Deramiocel; (2) that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not agreed to those changes before the Company resubmitted the Deramiocel Biologics License Application; (3) that, as a result, there was a significant risk that the FDA could conclude the clinical results did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness of Deramiocel; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk to regulatory approval of Deramiocel for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Plaintiff Darren Ngasseu Nkamga purchased Capricor securities during the Class Period. Defendant Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the development of cell and exosome-based therapeutics for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a rare genetic disorder characterized by progressive muscle degeneration and premature death. Defendant Linda Marban was the Chief Executive Officer of Capricor at all relevant times. Defendant Anthony J. Bergmann was the Chief Financial Officer at Capricor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 CAREFUSION RESOURCES: Hunter Labor Suit Removed to Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DAVID HUNTER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. CAREFUSION RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CU034764C, was removed from the California Superior Court, County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 31, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04392-AJB-SBC to the proceeding. The Complaint brings claim against Defendants for failure to pay all wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide all meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay all wages due to illegal rounding, failure to fully reimburse work expenses, derivative failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, derivative violations of the Labor Code and unfair business practices. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Class Members were not paid for all premium overtime compensation when they worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff Hunter is a resident of California and a non-exempt employee of Defendants from June 25, 2022 to the present. CareFusion Resources, LLC operates as a subsidiary and legal entity of Becton, Dickinson and Company, following BD's multi-billion dollar acquisition of CareFusion Corporation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Thomas R. Boswell, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com thomas.boswell@ogletree.com CENTIER BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marshall Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTIER BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00331 (N.D. Ind., July 24, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Marshall was employed by the Defendant as a loan officer. Centier Bank provides banking services. The Bank offers personal banking, wealth management, loans, savings accounts, leasing, retirement plans, investment management, and insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 Email: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com - and - Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, PMB # 201 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com CHATTEM INC: Personal Care Products Contain Allergens, Porcuna Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARISSA PORCUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHATTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-7990 (N.D. Cal., July 31, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from Chattem's false and misleading representations regarding the safety of its Gold Bond lotions, creams, and serum products. According to the complaint, the personal care products contain the recognized allergens and irritants contrary to the Delicate Formula Representations and they contain documented fragrance-functional ingredients contrary to the supported Fragrance Free Representations. The Food and Drug Administration has acknowledged that some components of fragrance formulas may have a potential to cause allergic reactions or sensitivities for some people, says the suit. Plaintiff Porcuna is a resident of California who purchased unscented variant of Gold Bond Healing Hydrating Body Lotion with Aloe for personal use. Chattem, Inc. manufactures and sells personal care products. The Company markets health and beauty products, toiletries, proprietary drugs, fragrances, and dietary supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com CHURCH AID: Hall Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ MA'SHAWNDA CHEVETT HALL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHURCH AID OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE TOWN OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, INC. d/b/a HOME OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1485 (AMN/CBF) (N.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026) is a class/collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages for late payment of wages. The complaint relates that during her employment, Plaintiff often worked 40 or more hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $22.50, and shift differential pay of $27.50 per hour, and $25.00 per hour and was paid on a bi-weekly basis. However, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all of her hours worked, including overtime hours. Furthermore, Defendant failed to timely pay Pick Up Bonuses, which Plaintiff earned by covering shifts in addition to her scheduled ones. To date, Defendant still has not paid Plaintiff for all Pick Up Bonuses she earned. The Plaintiff and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices and procedures, notes the complaint. Due to Defendants' willful violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to recover statutory penalties, together with costs and attorneys' fees provided by NYLL, says the suit. Plaintiff Ma'Shawnda Chevett Hall was employed by Defendant as a certified nursing assistant and/or home health aide from around April 2025 to May 2026. She generally worked at 400 Church Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866. Defendant The Church Aid of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of Saratoga Springs, Inc. d/b/a Home of the Good Shepherd is a New York not-for-profit corporation that operated assisted living and memory care facilities in and around Saratoga County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Finn W. Dusenbery, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & REHNS LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-002 COINBASE GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Narrows Underwood Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Coinbase Global, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that, on July 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims relating to the majority of transactions at issue with regard to an October 2021 purported class action captioned "Underwood et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc." filed against the company alleging claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1), and 29(b) of the Exchange Act. Said case sought to represent a putative class of similarly situated persons or entities and is focused on alleged violations of the federal securities laws as specified in the cited sections of the Exchange Act. On March 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Coinbase, Inc., and Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes of action, including alleging claims under Sections 5, 12(a)(1), and 15 of the Securities Act and violations of certain New Jersey state statutes. Among other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On February 1, 2023, the court dismissed all federal claims (with prejudice) and state law claims (without prejudice) against Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., and Brian Armstrong, and the plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Feb. 9, 2023. The parties completed briefing the appeal on Sept. 13, 2023, and oral argument took place on Feb. 1, 2024. On April 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals issued a Summary Order affirming the district court's dismissal order with respect to the claims alleging violations of the Exchange Act and reversing the district court's dismissal order with respect to the claims alleging violations of the Securities Act and violations of the state statutes. On June 27, 2024, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint, and on July 29, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings requesting the court dismiss the remaining claims. On Feb. 7, 2025, it denied defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and allowed the case to proceed to bifurcated discovery, followed by summary judgment motions. The parties completed their summary judgment briefing on June 17, 2026, and oral argument was held on July 15, 2026. With respect to the claims relating to the surviving subset of transactions, the case will proceed to further discovery. Coinbase Global, Inc. is a leading cryptocurrency exchange platform that enables individuals and institutions to buy, sell, and store digital assets. The company offers trading, custody, and related financial infrastructure services to retail and institutional customers worldwide. CROCS INC: Carretta Securities Class, Derivative Suits Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ Crocs, 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 30, 2026, that, on Jan. 22, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit titled "Carretta v. Crocs, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-00096, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its current officers. The action is brought as a putative class proceeding on behalf of purchasers of its common stock. The lawsuit alleges that investors were harmed in connection with their purchases of company securities during a specified class period. On Dec. 15, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of company common stock between Aug. 4, 2022, and Oct. 28, 2024, inclusive. The amended complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to the company's wholesaler inventory and its alleged impact on its revenue. It seeks unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, and other unspecified relief. In addition, four purported shareholders of the company have filed derivative actions against certain of its current directors and officers, as well as the company as a nominal defendant. These lawsuits allege breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, insider trading, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement related to the company's wholesaler inventory and its alleged impact on it. The plaintiffs seek damages and changes to the company's corporate governance structure. The actions are captioned "James O'Connor v. Smach, et al.," C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00576 (D. Colo.); "The Berger Trust v. Rees, et al.," C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00597 (D. Colo.); "Sarabia v. Rees, et al.," C.A. No. 2025CV30069 (D. Colo.), and "Lesanto v. Bickley, et al.," C.A. No. 2025CV30071 (D. Colo.). Crocs, Inc. is a global footwear company best known for its molded clogs and casual shoes, which it designs, manufactures, and markets under the Crocs brand. It sells its products through wholesale partners, company-operated retail stores, and e-commerce channels worldwide. DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Faces Williams Suit Over Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN WILLIAMS, individually, as natural parent and next friend of Y.W., C.W., J.B., and N.D., minors, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION D/B/A DEVEREUX ADVANCED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05354 (E.D. Pa., July 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of express contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach identified on November 9, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The Devereux Foundation, doing business as Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health, is an operator of behavioral health centers, with its principal place of business in Villanova, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com DG BUYER: Young Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DG BUYER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06547 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.drcomfort.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. DG Buyer, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FLAGSTONE FOODS: Xavier Sues Over "No Artificial Flavors" Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL XAVIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTONE FOODS LLC d/b/a EMERALD NUTS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-01278 (E.D. Cal., July 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of State Consumer Protection Statutes, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and quasi contract/unjust enrichment/restitution. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its snack products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents its products as having "No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Synthetic Colors." In reality, the products contain citric acid and maltodextrin, which are both artificial flavors and preservatives. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for them, says the suit. Flagstone Foods LLC, doing business as Emerald Nuts, is a manufacturer of snack products, headquartered in in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Hakakian, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 Email: jhakakian@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com FOOD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Declaration in "Enguerra" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ryan Enguerra and Froilex Ravelas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Food Systems Unlimited, Inc. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-CV-182 (EK)(LGD) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to supplement and denied the Defendant's motion to strike. This order assumed familiarity with the factual background of this wage-and-hour case. On September 27, 2025, the Plaintiff moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In support of that motion, the Plaintiff submitted a declaration from Maila Niones, a putative class member. The Defendant moved to strike that declaration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), arguing that the Plaintiff's failure to disclose Niones as a potential witness was neither substantially justified nor harmless. After scheduling a belated deposition of Niones, the Defendant moved to supplement its motion to strike. The supplemental brief identified certain inconsistencies between the declaration and deposition testimony, particularly regarding whether the declaration was fully translated to her in Tagalog. The Court referred those motions to Magistrate Judge Dunst for a Report and Recommendation, who recommended that the Court grant the Defendant's motion to supplement and deny its motion to strike. The Defendant raised two objections to the conclusions. First, it contended that the declaration was independently inadmissible under settled law governing English-language declarations of non-English speakers. Second, the Defendant argued that the report improperly applied the Patterson factors. The Court found the objections were not persuasive. Regarding the admissibility issues, the Court noted that the Defendant brought the motion pursuant to Rules 26 and 37. While the Defendant may have had legitimate concerns regarding the substance of the declaration, the Court stated that was a separate issue which could be addressed when deciding what weight to give the declaration as evidence in support of the motion for class certification. The Court observed that whether admissibility should be assessed in the same manner at class certification was an open question in the circuit. Regarding the analysis of the Patterson factors, the Court agreed that the report should have weighed factor one in the Defendant's favor because the Plaintiff failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for the failure to supplement disclosures. Nonetheless, the Court held that the other factors still weighed in the Plaintiff's favor. As for the treatment of the third factor, the Defendant claimed the report conflated the opportunity to depose a witness with the cure of prejudice. The Court found that the only incurable prejudice the Defendant identified was an inability to address the deposition testimony in its opposition to class certification. However, because the Defendant was able to raise those issues subsequently in a supplemental brief, the Court determined there was no real prejudice. The Court noted it would consider those arguments in deciding the class certification motion. Accordingly, the Court overruled the objections and adopted the report and recommendation in full. The Defendant's motion to supplement was granted and the motion to strike was denied. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 28, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jumd19 from PacerMonitor.com G6 HOSPITALITY: Hotel Rooms Used for Sex Trafficking, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1 (T.H.), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G6 HOSPITALITY LLC; G6 HOSPITALITY, IP, LLC; G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY, LLC; G6 HOSPITALITY PURCHASING, LLC; MOTEL 6 OPERATING, LP; G6 HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC; and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00906-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2013. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants derived a direct and continuing financial benefit from facilitating sex trafficking by providing a venue where traffickers could exploit women and children -- including the Plaintiff and the Class -- with minimal risk of detection or interruption. They maintained a business relationship with trafficker, who rented rooms on a repeated and continuous basis to sexually exploit her. The Defendants had the knowledge and opportunity to prevent the severe harm that the Plaintiff and the rest of the Class experienced as the result of continuous sexual exploitation. The Defendants could have reported suspicious activity. They could have refused to rent rooms to known traffickers. Again, they chose not to. Instead, the Defendants profited while the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class were beaten, threatened, and sold for sex -- over and over again -- in Defendants' hotel rooms, says the suit. G6 Hospitality LLC operates and franchises economy lodging. The Company offers property management, call center, distribution, marketing, sales programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Camillus, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC P.O. Box 141410 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 992-1000 Facsimile: (614) 559-6731 Email: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. Rashelle R. James, Esq. Carolina Yu, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Email: avi@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com rashelle.james@blbglaw.com carolina.yu@blbglaw.com GATEWAY CHURCH: Leach Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE LEACH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Katherine Leach, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gateway Church, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00885, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud claims. On Sept. 17, 2025, the Court denied Defendants Gateway Church and Robert Morris' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, and allowed the Plaintiffs to replead. On Oct. 13, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on Nov. 24, 2025. On June 23, 2026, Judge Amos L. Mazzant entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In sum, the Court agrees with the Defendants that resolving the Plaintiffs' claims will require the Court to conduct an inquiry into the "internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission," specifically, whether Gateway has properly allocated its funds from one charitable organization over another, which the Fifth Circuit has forbidden. And, again, determining whether a church's expenditures properly fall into a specific charitable purpose would require the Court to involve itself in internal church controversies by defining Gateway's mission and outreach efforts, which are topics unfit for adjudication. Thus, the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants must be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Accordingly, Gateway's motion to dismiss should be granted. Because Morris' motion to dismiss adopted Gateway's arguments, that motion should also be granted. Finally, having found that the Plaintiffs' claims are precluded under the First Amendment, the remaining motion to stay discovery and motion to strike class allegations should be denied as moot. The appellate case is styled as Leach v. Gateway Church, Case No. 26-40455, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KATHERINE LEACH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Timothy Micah Dortch, Esq. DORTCH LINDSTROM LIVINGSTON LAW GROUP 2613 Dallas Parkway Plano, TX 75093 Telephone: (214) 393-1212 Defendants-Appellees GATEWAY CHURCH, et al. are represented by: Ronald Wayne Breaux, Esq. HAYNES & BOONE, LLP 2801 N. Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 651-5688 - and - Christopher R. Knight, Esq. HAYNES & BOONE, LLP 301 Commerce Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 347-6637 - and - William Bryan Mateja, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 391-7415 - and - Aaron Zachary Tobin, Esq. CONDON TOBIN SLADEK THORNTON NERENBERG, PLLC 8080 Park Lane 24 Greenway Plaza Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 265-3851 GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bueno Appeals Alter Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE BUENO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment in the lawsuit entitled Julie Bueno, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Electric Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-822, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On Sept. 24, 2025, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On Oct. 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter judgment, which Judge Suddaby denied on June 26, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Bueno v. General Electric Company, Case No. 26-2051, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 27, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JULIE BUENO, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Sean E. Soyars, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Defendants-Appellees GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Jaime Santos, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 - and - Allison J. Schoenthal, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 - and - William David Pollak, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 GESTAMP WEST: Williams FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The case LAVONTE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GESTAMP WEST VIRGINIA, LLC, GESTAMP NORTH AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. STK-UOE-2026-4041, was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 30, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02636-DC-JDP to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gestamp West Virginia, LLC is a manufacturer of metal automotive components based in West Virginia. Gestamp North America, Inc. is an automotive supplier, headquartered in Michigan. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Heather D. Hearne, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 10233 South Parker Road, Suite 300 Parker, CO 80134 Telephone: (720) 447-6628 Facsimile: (225) 906-4230 Email: hdh@kullmanlaw.com GUTHRIE CLINIC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Waters Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA WATERS, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. THE GUTHRIE CLINIC f/k/a GUTHRIE HEALTH, Case No. 4:26-cv-02117-MWB (M.D. Pa., July 28, 2026) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Guthrie. The complaint relates that Waters and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But Guthrie does not pay Waters and the other Hourly Employees at their agreed hourly rates for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, Guthrie automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from Waters and the other Hourly Employees for so-called "meal breaks". Guthrie also requires them to remain on duty throughout their shifts and/or subjects them to interruptions during their unpaid, off the clock "meal breaks." Guthrie, thus, does not pay Waters and the other Hourly Employees at their agreed hourly rates for all hours worked. Additionally, Guthrie requires the Hourly Employees to clock in and out for their shifts via its timekeeping system but automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour. Finally, Guthrie does not pay Waters and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek. Instead, Guthrie pays Waters and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, that it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes . Guthrie's auto-deduction policy, rounding policy, and bonus pay scheme violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, says the suit. Jessica Waters was employed by Guthrie as a care partner/unit clerk from approximately November 2023 until December 2025. The Guthrie Clinic f/k/a Guthrie Health has been engaged in the operation of a hospital and/or operated an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com eceliesius@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com HARCROS CHEMICALS: Garner Appeals Suit Dismissal Order to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROCKY GARNER, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Rocky Garner, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for strict liability, gross negligence, negligence, negligent maintenance and repair, wrongful death, and punitive damages arising from exposure to toxic emissions originating from the Defendants' facility located in Kansas City. On Oct. 1, 2025 the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the Defendants. On Oct. 31, 2025, Defendants Harcros Chemicals Inc. and Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, respectively. On Apr. 9, 2026, Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an Order sustaining in part and overruling in part Defendant Harcros Chemicals Inc.'s motion to dismiss. It is sustained as to all claims by Plaintiffs Garner, Smith, White and the estate of McBee, and the Plaintiffs' negligent construction claim of Count IV, but not as to the negligent repair and maintenance claims of Count IV. Harcros' motion is overruled in regard to all other claims. On Apr. 16, 2026, Judge Vratil entered an Order sustaining Defendant Koninklijke Philips N.V.'s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and repose bar. The Plaintiffs' first amended issue class action complaint against Defendant Koninklijke Philips is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate case is styled as Rocky Garner, et al. v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., et al., Case No. 26-604, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners ROCKY GARNER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Noah Heinz, Esq. PAK HEINZ PLLC 20 F St. NW, 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 505-6354 Email: noah.heinz@pakheinz.com - and - Robert L. Kinsman, Esq. KRAUSE & KINSMAN GROUP, LLC 93 Francisco Escudero #1002 Dorado, PR 00646 Email: robert@krauseandkinsman.com HERCULES CAPITAL: Class Claims Dismissed, Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Capital, 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 30, 2026, that, on July 22, 2026, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned "Hunter v. Hercules Capital, Inc. et al.," No. 26-cv-2465-VC, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice. On March 20, 2026, said case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its officers, alleging that they made materially false and misleading statements regarding its operations and processes and seeking monetary damages. A lead plaintiff was appointed on June 25, 2026, and was ordered by the court to file an amended complaint on July 23, 2026. Additionally, it reported that two shareholder derivative complaints were filed, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and other misconduct by certain directors and officers of the Company based on substantially the same allegations and claiming damages as in the Hunter action. These have been consolidated before the same judge as the putative shareholder class action lawsuit under the caption "In re Hercules Capital, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," No. 5:26-cv-03213. On July 17, 2026, the parties in this action filed a stipulation to stay that litigation pending resolution of the Hunter lawsuit. The court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the derivative action on July 22, 2026. Hercules Capital, Inc. is a specialty finance company focused on providing senior secured venture growth loans to high-growth, innovative companies. It primarily serves technology, life sciences, and sustainable and renewable technology businesses. HOME DEPOT: Moystad False Email Suit Removed to D. Md. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ASK MOYSTAD, Plaintiff v. v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. D/B/A THE COMPANY STORE, Defendant, Case No. C-24-CV-26-004281, was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division on July 31, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case 1:26-cv-03013-MJM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is related to the Defendant's alleged violations of the Maryland's Commercial Electronic Mail Statute by transmitting commercial emails messages with subject lines that Plaintiff alleges are false and misleading information with the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving recipients. Plaintiff Moystad is a citizen of Maryland who has received approximately 236 messages from the Company Store since January 20, 2026. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores. The Company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn, garden, kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products. Home Depot U.S.A. serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert K. Hur, Esq. Amadou Kilkenny Diaw, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 737-0500 Email: rhur@kslaw.com adiaw@kslaw.com JAS TLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Alleges ------------------------------------------------- CONSTANTINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAS TLC, LLC d/b/a NY-CAREGIVERS; and CECILIA DENITEZ-CRESCO, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-06437 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide. JAS TLC, LLC d/b/a NY-Caregivers owned and operated a home healthcare agency under the tradename "NY-Caregivers," providing in-home care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clara Lam, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 Email: clam@bkllawyers.com JCS PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. JCS PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-6548 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.johnscrazysocks.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Conversation Hearts Crew Socks from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff LESHAWN YOUNG is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant JCS PRODUCTS LLC operates the John's Crazy Socks online retail store, as well as the John's Crazy Socks interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's socks, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JOY'S DELI GROCERY: Casado Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joy's Deli Grocery Corp., et al. The case is styled as Manuel Casado, Desire Castillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Joy's Deli Grocery Corp (DBA Joy's Deli Grocery), Jorge Luis Sanchez, Mirtha Castillo, Case No. 814665/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., July 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Commercial - Contract." Joy's Deli Grocery is a local neighborhood convenience store and food market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com LAS VEGAS, NV: Faces Wirey Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Nev. -------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WIREY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02332 (D. Nev., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as non-exempt hourly employees. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is a metropolitan police department in Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Plank, Esq. Oscar Peralta, Esq. Pamela Peralta, Esq. PERALTA PLANK LAW FIRM 1117 S. Rancho Dr., Suite B Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 758-8700 Email: service@peraltaplank.com - and - Marquis Hines, Esq. HINES LAW FIRM 7465 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Telephone: (702) 724-3347 Facsimile: (702) 549-8454 Email: marquis@mhineslaw.com - and - Nakkisa Akhavan, Esq. AKHAVAN LAW, PC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (213) 823-3203 Email: info@akhlawpc.com LASERAWAY LLC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Wong Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- LASERAWAY, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Caroline Wong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LaserAway, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00529-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On June 10, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Richard Seeborg denied on July 15, 2026. The Court finds that LaserAway has not shown an agreement to arbitrate was formed, thus the motion is denied. The appellate case is styled as Wong v. LaserAway, LLC, Case No. 26-4890, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee CAROLINE WONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 - and - Julia Kathryn Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Defendant-Appellant LASERAWAY, LLC is represented by: John Mittelbach, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 LENTIFUL LLC: Keene Files Mislabeling Suit Over Lentiful Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Caley Keene, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lentiful, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03473-RBJ (D. Colo., July 30, 2026) arises out of Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unlawful practices with respect to its marketing and sale of its Lentiful food products. Defendant Lentiful, LLC manufactures and sells its Products throughout the United States in a variety of physical and e-commerce stores. Plaintiff Caley Keene purchased the Mexican Green Chile flavor of the Product from a Whole Foods store located in Alameda County, California. The complaint relates that in purchasing the Products, Plaintiff was exposed to, read, and relied upon Defendant's labeling claims that were intended to appeal to consumers interested in protein-focused products. To the best of her recollection, Plaintiff read and relied on Defendant's labeling representations including "PACKED WITH PROTEIN," "12G PROTEIN," and the Products contained 24% of the Daily Recommended Value for protein. These statements and omissions led Plaintiff to believe that consuming the Products would provide an excellent source of protein and assist with leading a healthy lifestyle. However, instead of providing a high protein product containing 24% of the DRV for protein, Defendant provides a product containing approximately half of the represented daily value and far less than the amount required to make the high protein representation, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers would not have purchased the Products if they had known about the misrepresentations and omissions, or would have purchased them on different terms, says the suit. The Plaintiff, hence, seeks damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from its unlawful and deceptive business practices. In addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct in the labeling and marketing of the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq. Good Gustafson Aumais LLP 2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 274-4663 E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste. 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: 1-888-412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lavallee Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBYN LAVALLEE, 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-00496 (D.R.I., July 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including Social Security numbers, financial account codes, credit and debit account information, and government ID numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). According to the complaint, despite the Defendant's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant allowed an unauthorized party to gain access to Defendant's network and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about July 16, 2026 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept. The Defendant maintained the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members in a negligent and reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Brown's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the suit. Lifespan Physicians Group of Massachusetts, Inc. is a multi-specialty, physician-led medical group. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark W. Gemma, Esq. GEMMA LAW ASSOCIATES, INC. 231 Reservoir Avenue Providence, RI 02907 Telephone: (401) 467-2300 Facsimile: (401) 467-8678 Email: mark@gemmalaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com LIFESPAN PHYSICIAN: Scothorne Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN SCOTHORNE, 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. _____ (Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Mass., July 29, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff provided Defendant with her sensitive PII and PHI to receive healthcare services from Defendant. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from disclosure. On July 16, 2026, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Notice of Data Breach letter informing her that her Private Information may have been affected by a data security incident it discovered on December 16, 2025, involving unauthorized access to Defendant's server between December 15-16, 2025. The notice advises patients that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of Defendant's patients. This Private Information may have included patient name, date of birth, and contact information; health insurance information; medical information; billing, claims, and payment information; and other personal information, including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or other government-issued identification numbers, credit or debit card numbers, and financial account information. Because 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 in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for the Class from Defendant. Plaintiff Susan Scothorne is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Lifespan Physician Group of Massachusetts, Inc. d/b/a Brown Health Medical Group-MA is a physician practice group that is part of the Brown University Health system, which operates hospitals, clinics, and physician practices throughout Massachusetts and Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Glennon, Esq. BRODY, HARDON, PERKINS & KESTEN, LLP 265 Franklin Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 9617) 880-7100 E-mail: mglennon@bhpklaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com service@eksm.com LOANCARE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Tederick" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Gary Tederick and Lisa Tederick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LoanCare, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-394 (E.D. Va.), Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. The Tedericks built their home in Hedgesville, West Virginia in 2002 and refinanced their home in 2004. The terms of the loan required the Tedericks to make monthly payments and interest was charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of principal had been paid. The note stated that monthly payments were to be applied as of its scheduled due date and were to be applied to interest before principal. According to the Tedericks, this meant that when a borrower makes a prepayment any time before the scheduled monthly payment, the servicer must apply the prepayment to the unpaid balance immediately. Between 2005 and 2020, the Tedericks made 180 payments with both a scheduled monthly payment and a prepayment. In 152 of those payments, a servicer failed to apply the Tedericks' prepayment and scheduled monthly payment in the correct order. LoanCare became the subservicer of the mortgage loan around April 2019. The Tedericks alleged that despite contacting LoanCare to explain the previous servicer's mistake and get it corrected, the company did not fix the issue and continued to apply the prepayments in the incorrect order. The sole remaining claim in the suit alleged violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. In their motion for class certification, the Tedericks argued that the instant case was tailor-made for class-action treatment and concerned relatively minor damages. They averred that a class-action was the ideal vehicle to efficiently and fairly resolve this dispute. However, the Court found that the Tedericks failed to satisfy the numerosity, predominance, and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Regarding the threshold requirement of ascertainability, the Tedericks proposed a class of all natural persons who were residing in West Virginia and credited by LoanCare with an additional principal payment on a home loan before the next scheduled periodic-payment due date. The Court found that the Tedericks demonstrated that the Court could readily identify the class members in reference to objective criteria and was thus ascertainable. Although LoanCare argued it did not track state of residency as a data point, the Court found that the company must track its borrowers' addresses for billing purposes and this objective criterion to identify potential class members existed. However, the Court found that the Tedericks failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement. A class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The Tedericks contended, without evidence, that there were 5,000 members in the class. The Court found they provided no evidence to substantiate their claim that 5,000 consumers were impacted by LoanCare's alleged conduct. The Court stated it would not speculate that the proposed class was sufficiently numerous and concluded that the Tedericks did not make a showing that would afford the Court the means to make a supported factual finding. The Court found that the Tedericks met the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). A common question is one that can be resolved for each class member in a single hearing. The Court noted that the question of whether home-loan debts were claims under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act was a common question for anyone the company services. Conversely, the Court found that the Tedericks did not meet the typicality requirement. Typicality is inappropriate when the resulting harm is dependent upon consideration of the unique circumstances pertinent to each class member. The Court found that while borrowers in the proposed class had some aspects of their claims in common, there were variations in borrowers' loan provisions, subservicer history, and interest rates. The Court concluded the class claims were based on widely divergent facts and therefore the Tedericks did not meet the typicality requirement. Regarding predominance, the Court found that common issues of law or fact did not predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The Court noted that the sheer number of contracts involved and the fact that not all plaintiffs signed the same form contract cut against class certification. Furthermore, the Court found that individualized proof of damages causation was essential to liability and destroyed predominance. Because the Tedericks sought to certify a class including conduct from other subservicers that allegedly misapplied prepayments, the Court would have to conduct the functional equivalent of a full-blown trial on damages causation for each putative class member to determine the extent of damages attributable to LoanCare. The Court also found that language variations in loan terms, such as notice-and-cure provisions, agreements to arbitrate, or waivers of jury trials, suggested that individualized issues would predominate. Additionally, borrowers obtained different types of loans, such as VA, USDA, or FHA loans, which were subject to different guidelines. Consequently, the Court found that the Tedericks did not demonstrate that common issues of fact or law predominated over individualized issues. Finally, the Court found that a class action was not the superior vehicle to adjudicate the claim. The Court noted that when individual rather than common issues predominate, the economy and efficiency of class action treatment are lost, and the need for judicial supervision and the risk of confusion are magnified. Therefore, the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) were not met and class certification was denied. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 29 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oDceNn from PacerMonitor.com MARY AND JANE LLC: Navarrete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary and Jane LLC, et al. The case is styled as Valeria Navarrete, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mary and Jane LLC d/b/a WWW.SHOPMARYANDJANE.COM, Case No. 26CU040476C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., July 28, 2026). Mary & Jane LLC -- https://shopmaryandjane.com/ -- operates Mary & Jane, a women-founded wellness brand specializing in fast-acting, microdosed hemp-derived THC and kanna melts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com MARYLAND: Appeals Approved Class Cert. in Palmer Suit to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jamien Palmer, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of Maryland, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00899-CDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The suit is brought against the Defendants for unconstitutional over detention, violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. On May 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Charles D. Austin granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 31, 2026. On June 24, 2026, Judge Austin entered another Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Accordingly, the Court finds that all Rule 23(a)and 23(b)(3) conditions for class certification are met. The Court certifies a general class of all individuals detained at Central Booking for more than 2.5 hours after the Record Staff Approval Time following an order for their release. In addition, the Court will certify subclasses. The appellate case is styled as Jamien Palmer v. State of Maryland, Case No. 26-2007, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMIEN PALMER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Esq. Kristen Marie Mack, Esq. HANSEL LAW, PC 2514 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Telephone: (301) 461-1040 (828) 243-7949 Defendants-Appellants STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. are represented by: Michael O'Connor Doyle, Esq. Veronica Natasha Love, Esq. Merrilyn Elise Ratliff, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 6776 Reisterstown Road Baltimore, MD 21215 Telephone: (410) 585-3070 - and - Laura Mullally, Esq. Anthony G. Brown, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (443) 204-0675 META PLATFORMS: Daigneau Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- MAURIE DAIGNEAU, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Maurie Daigneau, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-10180-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit arises from Meta's role in enabling, facilitating, and materially contributing to a stock manipulation scheme that used advertisements created by Meta and distributed through its social media platforms, and its messaging service, to extract millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims. On Apr. 21, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which Judge William H. Orrick granted on July 17, 2026. The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Daigneau, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 26-4808, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 3, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on August 10, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on September 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 19, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MAURIE DAIGNEAU, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 - and - Leonid Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV, LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Appellee META PLATFORMS, INC. is represented by: Ari Holtzblatt, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 - and - Jessica L. Lewis, Esq. Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 META PLATFORMS: Irving Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY IRVING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Anthony Irving, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01127-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit arises from Meta's role in enabling, facilitating, and materially contributing to a stock manipulation scheme that used advertisements created by Meta and distributed through its social media platforms, and its messaging service, to extract millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims. On Apr. 20, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge William H. Orrick granted on July 17, 2026. The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Irving, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 26-4826, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 3, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on August 10, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on September 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on October 19, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on November 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANTHONY IRVING, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 - and - Leonid Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV, LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Appellee META PLATFORMS, INC. is represented by: Ari Holtzblatt, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 - and - Jessica L. Lewis, Esq. Madeeha Dean, Esq. Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: $53M Antitrust Settlement Awaits Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mid-America Apartments, L.P. 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 30, 2026, that it is currently facing a consolidated putative class action captioned "In Re: RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II)," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and the related settlement agreement it entered into with the named plaintiffs. In late 2022 and early 2023, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed against RealPage, Inc. and approximately 50 of the largest owners and operators of apartment communities in the country, including the company, alleging that RealPage and such owners and operators conspired to artificially inflate multifamily residential rental prices through the use of RealPage's revenue management software. In April 2023, those cases were centralized in the Middle District of Tennessee. On Jan. 26, 2026, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the class members, which was subsequently amended on April 28, 2026. The settlement agreement, as well as settlement agreements entered into by other defendants, received preliminary approval from the court on May 22, 2026, and remains subject to final approval by the Court. Certain Attorneys General, including the D.C. Attorney General and the Kentucky Attorney General, have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the court's order denying their motion to intervene and to clarify or modify the preliminary approval order entered in connection with the proposed settlements, as well as the court's order enjoining class members from pursuing certain claims that would be released by the settlements that the Court preliminarily approved. The appeal remains pending. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company was required to pay an aggregate of $53 million into a settlement fund to settle all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, against the company relating to the alleged conduct at issue in the litigation. The settlement payment was made in two equal installments of $26.5 million, with the first payment made in March 2026 and the second payment made in May 2026. The settlement amount is inclusive of the recovery amount for class members, fees for the plaintiffs' counsel, and the costs of administering the settlement. In addition, the settlement agreement includes certain prospective commitments regarding the Company's business practices, including provisions relating to the disclosure and use of nonpublic data and the company's use of revenue management software, all of which it believes are consistent with its existing practices and will not require material changes to current operations. Under the settlement agreement, if the number of eligible class members opting out of the settlement exceeds a specified level, the company may request that the settlement terms be revised, and if the parties then cannot agree on revised settlement terms within 60 days (as may be extended by the parties), the settlement agreement will terminate. There can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation with respect to the company, including no assurance that the settlement agreement will be approved by the court or that any revised settlement terms, if applicable, will be finalized by the parties and approved by the court. Additionally, the company is involved in other lawsuits that make allegations similar to those asserted in the class action litigation and that seek monetary damages and penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2023, a lawsuit alleging violations of the District of Columbia's antitrust laws was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by the District of Columbia against RealPage, Inc., and a number of large apartment community owners and operators, including the company (the DC Litigation). Similarly, in July 2025, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through its Attorney General, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against RealPage, Inc., and several of the state's largest landlords, including the company, alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws, among other things. Mid-America Apartments, L.P. is a real estate investment trust focused on owning, managing, and developing multifamily apartment communities across high-growth Sunbelt markets in the United States. It operates a diversified portfolio of rental properties serving a broad range of residents. MOELIS & CO: Claims in Delaware SPAC Class Suit Narrowed -------------------------------------------------------- Moelis & Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 29, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2026, that, on July 21, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a telephonic bench ruling granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated securities suit. The ruling allowed the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims to proceed as to the directors and officers of Atlas Crest, with the exception of one director who was dismissed, and as to the sponsor, but it narrowed the scope of the surviving claims as to all remaining defendants. The court also dismissed the aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment claims against the Moelis entities, Archer, and the Archer co-founders. On May 17, 2024, two putative stockholders of Archer Aviation, Inc. filed a class action lawsuit in said court against the directors and officers of Atlas Crest Investment Corp., the sponsor Atlas Crest Investment LLC, Archer, the Archer co-founders, and Moelis & Company Group LP and Moelis & Company LLC. This complaint, referred to as the Singh Complaint, was brought on behalf of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated stockholders and asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment in connection with the merger between Atlas Crest and Archer. It also included aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment claims against the Moelis entities and sought damages in an amount to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees. Relatedly, on June 19, 2024, another putative stockholder of Archer filed a separate class action lawsuit, referred to as the Wortman Complaint, in the same court. That action asserted similar claims as the Singh Complaint against the same defendants and was also brought on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated stockholders. On July 23, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the Singh and Wortman actions, designating the Singh Complaint as the operative complaint, and appointing the three putative stockholders as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On Oct. 3, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint for failure to state a claim. On Jan. 13, 2025, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their answering brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss, and defendants' reply briefs were due on Feb. 28, 2025. The court scheduled oral argument on the motions to dismiss for April 17, 2025. Moelis & Co. is a global independent investment bank that provides financial advisory services, including mergers and acquisitions, recapitalizations, restructurings, and other strategic and capital markets advice to corporations, institutions, governments, and financial sponsors worldwide. The firm operates through a network of offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. MONSANTO COMPANY: Morrell Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rivers Morrell, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Bayer CropScience LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03904 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07766-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aimee Hall Wagstaff, Esq. ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC 7171 West Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 80226 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (303) 376-6361 Email: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com - and - Benjamin Gillig, Esq. Ian Forgie, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: bgillig@wagstafflawfirm.com MOSAIC COMPANY: Toenjes Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Randy Toenjes, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Mosaic Company, Nutrien Ltd., Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc., CF Industries Holdings, Inc., CF Industries Inc., CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC, Koch Agronomic Services, LLC, Yara International ASA, Yara North America, Inc., Canpotex LTD, Case No. 1:26-cv-06278 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01232-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. The Mosaic Company -- https://mosaicco.com/ -- is an American chemical company based in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-0000 Fax: (312) 214-0001 Email: alevitt@gelaw.com MSS BEAUTY INC: Thomas Sues Over Blind Inaccessible-Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Christine Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MSS BEAUTY, INC. d/b/a YISE BEAUTY, Case No. 1:26-cv-06411 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026), is brought for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its e-commerce website, www.yisebeauty.com, is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Website functions as an online retail store and digital gateway to Defendant's product catalog, promotional materials, and purchasing functions. Defendant is responsible for ensuring that the Website complies with federal, state, and local accessibility laws. During each visit, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from meaningfully browsing or purchasing merchandise. The Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its Website in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers denies Plaintiff--and all similarly situated individuals--the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, privileges, and advantages, in violation of Title III of the ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to remediate the Website's accessibility barriers, adopt accessibility policies and governance, and ensure that the Website is--and remains-- fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in substantial conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind resident of Bronx County, New York. MSS BEAUTY, INC. d/b/a YISE BEAUTY owns, operates, and controls the commercial retail website www.yisebeauty.com, which markets and sells skincare and beauty products to consumers throughout the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com NAILS ART: Garay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CARLOS GARAY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1230 NAILS ART CORP. d/b/a SOPHIA'S NAILS & SPA and TESLA SOPHIA ALFARO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04679 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to premium overtime wages exceeding 40 hours per week which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked from 9:30 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. and sometimes later but received only daily rate of pay between $80 and $120 per day plus tips, regardless of the number of hours worked each day. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate, or the applicable minimum wage rate, says the suit. Plaintiff Garay was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hairstylist and nail technician from in or about December 2021 until April 2022, again from in or about October 2022 until November 2023, and finally from in or about March 2024 until October 25, 2024. Sophia's Nails is a business entity located at 1230 Middle Country Road, Selden, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL: Rosalez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOEY ROSALEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Joey Rosalez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-CV-01999-DDD-SBP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Sept. 22, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which Judge Daniel D. Domenico granted on July 6, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Rosalez v. Navajo Transitional Energy Company, Case No. 26-1300, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOEY ROSALEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 5847 San Felipe Street, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Defendant-Appellee NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL ENERGY COMPANY, LLC is represented by: Mairead K. Dolan, Esq. Jeffrey Max Lippa, Esq. WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON 1801 California Street, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-2828 NELSON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Yzquierdo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVIAN MIGUEL YZQUIERDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NELSON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02557 (N.D. Tex., July 31, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") -- together "PII/PHI" -- about its employees and students. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On March 21, 2025 to April 6, 2025, Defendant was hacked per Defendant's report to the Attorney General of California. The following types of PII/PHI may have been compromised: Name of individual; Social Security Number Information; Driver's License number; Government-issued ID number (e.g., passport, state ID card); Financial Information (e.g., account number, credit or debit card number); and f. Medical Information. In total, Defendant injured at least 21,905 persons including its employees and students. And yet, Defendant waited until June 18, 2026, before it began notifying the Class, a full 454 days after the Data Breach began. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft. Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try to mitigate his injuries, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Davian Miguel Yzquierdo is a current student and employee of Defendant. He has been a student since fall 2024 and an employee since fall of 2025. Defendant Nelson University is an accredited private Christian university in Waxahachie, Texas.[BN] 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 E-mail: calvarez@straussborrelli.com NIPPON SANSO MATHESON: Stallworth Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Donald R. Stallworth, Jr. (f/k/a Donald Cook), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NIPPON SANSO MATHESON, INC. (formerly known as MATHESON TRI GAS, INC.), Case No. 4:26-cv-00953 (E.D. Tex., July 28, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Defendant violated the FLSA by classifying its dispatchers as exempt from overtime and by paying them a flat salary with no overtime compensation for hours worked over forty per workweek, even though the duties of those dispatchers do not satisfy the requirements of any FLSA exemption. The Defendant knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiff was performing these after-hours dispatch tasks as the Defendant's own employees and contractors were the ones initiating the communications. Matheson suffered and permitted the Plaintiff to perform this work and did not compensate him for it, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a dispatcher for six years. Matheson produces, distributes, and sells industrial, medical and specialty gases, along with gas handling equipment and welding supplies, to customers in industries that include semiconductor manufacturing, healthcare, energy, food processing, and metal fabrication.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill Longview, TX 75601 Phone: (512) 799-2048 Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com - and - Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Phone: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com NRG ENERGY: Banks Wage and Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOHNNY BANKS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NRG ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation; VIVINT LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV488757, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-07792 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that: Defendants had a consistent policy of misstating Employees [sic] time records and failing to pay Employees for all hours worked; Defendants had a uniform pattern of unlawful wage and hour practices which manifested, without limitation, applicable to the Class as a whole, as a result of implementing a uniform policy and practice that denied accurate compensation to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class as to minimum wage pay; from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees for all hours worked and failing to pay minimum wage for all time worked as required by California Law; Defendants thus regularly failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and Class members, and that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and Employees at the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked. NRG Energy, Inc. is a major American energy and electricity provider. Vivint LLC is a smart home and security provider. The Defendants are represented by: Christopher W. Decker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 E-mail: christopher.decker@ogletree.com - and - Ori Lavi, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 E-mail: ori.lavi@ogletree.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Peele Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DIRK PEELE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-19410-6, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on July 31, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02729 to the proceeding. The complaint sets these causes of action against the Defendant including alleged payment of wages less than entitled and failure to pay minimum wages, alleged failure to provide rest and meal periods and alleged failure to pay wages at established pay periods. Plaintiff Peele is a resident of Washington and worked as a non-exempt employee for Defendant. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. provides logistics services. The Company operates in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert Flemer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 Email: rflemer@littler.com - and - Nate Oleson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 815 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006.4046 Telephone: (202) 842-3400 Facsimile: (202) 842-0011 Email: noleson@littler.com - and - Leslie P. Currie, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1800 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 500 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 442-8425 Facsimile: (703) 442-8428 Email: lcurrie@littler.com OREGON: Appeals Tossed Reconsideration Bid in S.D. Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE REESE, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled S.D., et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mike Reese, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-01726-CL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. This case is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a putative class of all current and future transgender women in Oregon Department of Corrections custody. On Dec. 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which Judge Mark D. Clarke granted on April 28, 2026. On May 6, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 28 Order, which Judge Clarke granted in part and denied in part on July 7, 2026. The Defendants' request that the Court de-certify the Class and strike the relief previously granted is denied. The Defendants' request for clarification and modification of the relief is granted, in part. On same day, the Court also entered Amended Order on preliminary injunction. The appellate case is styled as S.D., et al. v. Reese, et al., Case No. 26-4872, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2026; -- Appellant's Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief is due on August 27, 2026; and -- Appellee's Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief is due on September 24, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees S.D., et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: John David Burgess, Esq. SNYDER, POST AND BURGESS 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 - and - Carl L. Post, Esq. SNYDER, POST & BURGESS 3835 NE Hancock Street, Suite 102 Portland, OR 97212 Defendants-Appellants MIKE REESE, et al. are represented by: Robert A. Koch, Esq. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1162 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 - and - Paul L. Smith, Esq. Ariel T. Ashtamker, Esq. OFFICE OF THE OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL 400 Justice Building 1162 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 PARK HA BIOLOGICAL: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Thomas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT THOMAS and TULIKA MUKHERJEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARK HA BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., XIAOQIU ZHANG, XIAOQIU HOLDING LTD., XIAOYAN ZHU, LI WANG, WWC, P.C., DAWSON JAMES SECURITIES, INC. and D. BORAL CAPITAL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06421 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Park Ha's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Park Ha securities at artificially inflated prices between December 27, 2024 and July 8, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion scheme involving social media-based misinformation and impersonated financial professionals; (2) that the company's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the false rumors and artificial trading activity driving the stock price; (3) that the company's initial public offering (IPO) was intentionally structured with an extremely low public float to enable the manipulation scheme; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, on July 8, 2025, the share price plummeted by approximately 93 percent from the prior day's close of $41.01 to just $2.99 per share, with a trading volume of over 8.9 million. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of skincare and cosmetics products, with its principal executive offices located in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron T. Morris, Esq. Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. William H. Spruance, III, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 431-7473 Email: aaron@moka.law andrew@moka.law william@moka.law PAZ J: Ramos Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE RAMOS, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) v. PAZ J, LLC, and CLAXTON C. OCHOA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-1643 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2026) is a collective action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under laws of the United States and pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that during the relevant period, Plaintiff worked as a "Construction Worker", performing duties involving construction repair. Plaintiff was supposed to be paid an hourly rate of $27.00 per hour. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked regularly five days per week from Monday through Friday, from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (10 hours daily), or a total of 50 hours weekly. Plaintiff was never able to take bona fide meal periods, as his meal periods were always interrupted with work, therefore, time spent on interrupted meal periods constitute compensable time under the FLSA. Due to Plaintiff's complaints about unpaid regular and overtime wages, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by refusing to pay Plaintiff for his last days of work, including overtime wages, and constructively discharged Plaintiff on June 10th, 2026, say the suit. Plaintiff Josue Ramos was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time construction worker from May 18, 2026 to June 10, 2026, or nearly 1 month. Defendant PAZ J, LLC is a construction company specializing in construction repair projects. Defendant PAZ operates in Orange County, Florida. Individual Defendant, CLAXTON C. OCHOA is now the owner/partner/and manager of Defendant corporation PAZ.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com PENTWATER CAPITAL: Hakimian Sues Over Unfair Stock Trading ---------------------------------------------------------- KHASHAYAR HAKIMIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENTWATER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP and MATTHEW HALBOWER, Defendants, Case 2:26-cv-02275 2:26-cv-02275 (M.D. Fla., July 31, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Avis securities (including those who bought Avis common stock to cover a short position) between February 20, 2025 and April 21, 2026, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, Pentwater and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer Matthew Halbower took advantage of Pentwater's position as one of Avis's largest shareholders and aggressively purchased 51% shares of the Avis through stocks and cash-settled swaps as of March 2026. The stock purchase resulted in a rapid surge in Avis's stock price as short sellers bought back shares to limit their losses, thereby fueling further price increases and substantially increasing the value of Pentwater's holdings of Avis stock. Avis's stock price reached a staggering high of $765.94 per share during intraday trading on April 21, 2026 but it collapsed to $182.005 per share on April 28, 2026. The Plaintiff and other Class members purchased Avis common stock between February 20, 2025 and April 21, 2026. The Plaintiff seeks remedies and equitable relief for alleged manipulation and artificial inflation of Avis Budget Group's stocks orchestrated by Defendants Pentwater and Halbower. Pentwater Capital Management LP operates as a private investment firm. The Company offers portfolio management and advisory services to hedge funds, ETFs, and separately managed accounts. Pentwater Capital Management serves customers globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 2103 N. Commerce Parkway Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: nczipperian@millershah.com jagoldstein@millershah.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 457 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com PLUMBING SUPPLY: Pardo Seeks Equal Property Access to Disabled -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. DANIEL I HITCHCOCK JR, PALMETTO HARDWARE & PLUMBING SUPPLY INC D/B/A MIAMI HOME CENTERS and PINECREST BAKERY & SON LLC D/B/A PINECREST BAKERY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-25190-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising the Defendants' alleged multiple violations of the American with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Pardo is an individual with disabilities who encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property, hardware store, and bakery during his visits on January 16, 2026 and June 30, 2026. The Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendants' places of public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts violating the ADA and barriers to access identified in the Complaint. The Defendants own, operate, and oversees the subject commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com POINT6 LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. POINT6 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06549 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.point6.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 7, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Women's Base Layer Mid-Weight Bottoms from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff LESHAWN YOUNG is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant POINT6 LLC operates the Point6 online retail store, as well as the Point6 interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's high-performance socks and apparel, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS: Faces Suit Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- OPERATING ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND MISCELLANEOUS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROCEPT BIOROBOTICS CORPORATION; REZA ZADNO; LARRY L. WOOD; KEVIN WATERS; and HISHAM SHIBLAQ, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-07691 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Procept common stock between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Procept and certain of the Company's directors and executive officers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the public documents and statements they issued and disseminated during the Class Period to the investing public in the name of the Company, or in their own name, were materially false and misleading. The Defendants knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements and documents as primary violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding Procept, and their control over and/or receipt and/or modification of Procept's allegedly materially misleading misstatements, were active and culpable participants in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein. The price of Procept common stock fell from $27.84 per share on February 25, 2026 to $22.69 per share on February 27, 2026, a decline of more than 18% over a two-day trading period, on above-average trading volume. The price of Procept stock has continued to decline as the negative impacts of Procept's undisclosed discounting program and customer overstocking problems have been revealed to the market, falling to less than $18 per share by July 22, 2026, says the suit. As a result of the declines in the price of Procept stock after the revelations of truth, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered significant financial losses and economic damages under the federal securities laws, the suit added. PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation manufactures medical and surgical equipment. The Company offers surgical robot providing autonomous tissue removal to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com QVC GROUP: Gui Appeals Denied Motion to Stay Order to 5th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM GUI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their amended motion for a stay pending appeal and denying as moot their motion for emergency motion to stay in the lawsuit entitled Adam Gui, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QVC Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-05680, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On July 20, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to stay pending appeal of confirmation order, or, in the alternative, for limited stay and interim stay pending hearing. On July 23, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for a stay pending appeal. On July 28, 2026, Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. entered an Order denying their amended motion and denying as moot their motion for emergency motion to stay. The Court concludes that that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden. The appellate case is styled as Adam Gui, et al. v. QVC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-20412, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Appellees QVC GROUP, INC., et al. are represented by: Joshua A. Sussberg, Esq. Aparna Yenamandra, Esq. Laila M. Kassis, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 - and - Chad J. Husnick, Esq. Gabriela Zamfir Hensley, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 - and - Rex W. Manning, Esq. Katherine McMullen, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 RTX CORP: Owoseni Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------- OLUFEMI OWOSENI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02296-PTG-WBP (E.D. Va., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on June 25, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. RTX Corporation is a private aerospace and defense company based in Arlington, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 Email: lee@floydpc.com jonathan@floydpc.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com RTX CORP: Toles Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------- JESSIE TOLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02332 (E.D. Va., July 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on June 25, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. RTX Corporation is a private aerospace and defense company based in Arlington, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 Email: lee@floydpc.com jonathan@floydpc.com - and - Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com SCHECK MECHANICAL: Wallis Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Weston Wallis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SCHECK MECHANICAL CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-08929 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2026), to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wisconsin law. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant automatically rounds their hours to reflect only their prescheduled shifts (the Defendant's "rounding policy"). The Defendant automatically rounds the Plaintiff's and the other Hourly Employees' clock in and clock out times to reflect only their prescheduled shifts despite these employees typically working beyond their prescheduled shifts. In addition to failing to pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all hours worked, the Defendant also fails to pay them overtime wages at the required premium rates for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees shift differentials it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. (the Defendant's "shift differential pay scheme"). The Defendant's rounding policy and shift differential pay scheme violate the FLSA and Wisconsin law by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked--based on all remuneration--in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a pipe fitter in Wisconsin from October 2024 through September 2025. Scheck Industries, and its group of Companies, is a national turnkey Industrial Contractor, with core construction expertise in the Refinery, Power, Chemical, Pulp and Paper, Semiconductor, Renewable Energy, Food and Beverage, and the Pharmaceutical Industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 5847 San Felipe St, Ste 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St, Ste 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com SECURITAS CRITICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITAS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01604 (W.D. Pa., July 28, 2026) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendant as a security guard. Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc. offers specialized operations providing security, fire, emergency response, investigations, inspections, cybersecurity, and mission support services to the defense contractors and other critical infrastructure. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com SPECIALIZED LANDSCAPE: Barrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Specialized Landscape Management Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eduardo Barrera, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Specialized Landscape Management Services Inc., Does 1 through 100, Case No. 26STCV23718 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2026). Specialized Landscape Management Services, Inc. -- https://slmlandscape.com/ -- is a leader in commercial landscaping and maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sam Sani, Esq. SANI LAW, APC 595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 522 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (310) 935-0405 Fax: (310) 935-0409 Email: ssani@sanilawfirm.com STABLECOIN DEVELOPMENT: Class Suit Mooted, $225K Fee Deal Reached ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stablecoin Development 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 30, 2026, that, on Feb. 24, 2026, the company and its directors were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported stockholder of the company captioned "Edward Smith v. NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.," C.A. No. 2026-0260-KSJM. The plaintiff alleged that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure to its stockholders in connection with the first of eight proposals to be presented for stockholder approval at the company's March 12, 2026, special meeting. On Feb. 26, 2026, the parties reached agreement on a voluntary supplemental disclosure from the company that would resolve the plaintiff's claim. Pursuant to that agreement, on March 2, 2026, the company voluntarily supplemented certain disclosures in its definitive proxy statement, which it had previously filed with the SEC on Feb. 10, 2026. On May 12, 2026, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing the Action as Moot, pursuant to which the company agreed to pay $225,000 to fully resolve the plaintiff's counsel's claim for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. That same day, the court entered an order closing the action, subject to the company filing an affidavit with the court confirming that the related notice had been issued. In entering the Stipulation and Proposed Order, the court was not asked to review and did not pass judgment on the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness. Stablecoin Development Corp. is a financial technology company focused on the development, issuance, and management of stablecoin-based digital assets and related infrastructure. It offers products and services designed to facilitate secure, compliant digital payments and blockchain-enabled financial transactions. SUNO INC: Rugnetta Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- FRANK RICHARD RUGNETTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-13433-ADB (D. Mass., July 28, 2026) arises from a cybersecurity incident that occurred in November 2025 and resulted in the unauthorized acquisition and later circulation of personal information associated with more than 55 million Suno users. Defendant Suno, Inc. operates a generative artificial-intelligence music platform through which users create accounts, submit prompts and other content, generate music, and, in some instances, purchase subscription. To create and administer those accounts, Suno collects and maintains personal information, including email addresses and account identifiers, and for some users phone numbers, names, physical addresses, purchase information, and partial payment-card data. Plaintiff created a Suno account no later than November 1, 2024. Suno sent a welcome email directly to the Gmail address associated with his account and recognized a unique Suno display name for him. According to the complaint, Suno confirmed a November 2025 security incident, did not dispute the reported scale, and had not publicly disclosed the incident or produced evidence of individualized user notice as of July 21, 2026. Have I Been Pwned ("HIBP") identifies Plaintiff's Suno account email address as included in the Suno breach corpus. That same HIBP query identifies no other known data breach involving his account email address. The Suno incident is therefore the only breach presently identified by HIBP as exposing that address. Following the Data Breach, Plaintiff experienced an increase in unsolicited spam telephone calls and phishing attempts. He has spent approximately ten hours investigating the incident, attempting to protect his other online accounts, reviewing and strengthening account security, monitoring for misuse, and consulting counsel regarding protective measures and his legal rights, says the suit. Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and equitable relief. He seeks damages for his lost time and other injuries, restitution and disgorgement where available, complete notice of the information affected, appropriate protective services, and reasonable prospective security and data-retention relief. Plaintiff Frank Richard Rugnetta is a Suno user whose account email address appears in the HIBP-verified Suno breach corpus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: 771-772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Nicholas Andrew Hall, Esq. HALL ATTORNEYS, P.C. P.O. Box 1370 Edna, TX 77957 Telephone: +1 713 428 8967 E-mail: nhall@hallattorneys.com SUPER MICRO: Patel Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAYANTILAL PATEL filed on July 27, 2026, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 26-4794, in connection with an Order in the lawsuit styled as Bhuva v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-02606-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act. [BN] Movant-Petitioner JAYANTILAL PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Email: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Miner Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------- Harold Miner, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the T-MOBILE USA, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN & TRUST, PLAINTIFF v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF T-MOBILE USA, INC. AND ITS MEMBERS, THE T-MOBILE RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS, DOES 1-20, and DOES 21-40, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:26-cv-02724 (W.D. Wash., July 31, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a wireless network carrier headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. T-Mobile is the Plan Sponsor. The complaint relates that the Defendants have retained in the Plan investment lineup an investment fund that is among the poorest performing of its kind: the T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Trust. The Growth Stock Trust has been in the Plan since at least 2009. During those 17 years, the Growth Stock Trust has been a persistent underperformer costing the Plan hundreds of millions of dollars in lost retirement savings. Had the T-Mobile Defendants been diligently monitoring the Plan as part of a prudent fiduciary process, they would have seen the multiple indicators that the Growth Stock Trust was no longer a prudent investment option for the Plan. They would have realized that the Growth Stock Trust's investment returns for the Plan relative to its designated benchmark and comparable funds with similar aims, risks, and potential rewards were indefensible. They would have realized that the market had lost confidence in the Growth Stock Trust's investment strategy. Yet, the T-Mobile Defendants failed to take action to remove and replace the Growth Stock Trust. As a result, the Plan has suffered loss. Plaintiff suffered individual injury in the form of diminished retirement savings by investing in the Growth Stock Trust during the Class Period. Defendants caused this loss by failing to (a) evaluate and monitor the Plan's investments on an ongoing basis; (b) eliminate imprudent investments; (c) take all necessary steps to ensure the Plan's assets were invested properly; and (d) investigate, evaluate, and monitor investments. These failures directly resulted in a Plan that included the Growth Stock Trust which suffered poor performance for well over a decade. Defendants failed to remove it within a reasonable time despite historical underperformance relative to its relevant benchmarks and comparator funds and despite a market indicator signaling serious problems. These were general practices that affected all Plan participants during the Class Period, including Plaintiff, who suffered harm in the form of diminished retirement savings as a result of these imprudent practices. The defects that made these general practices imprudent were thus of the same type that caused Plaintiff's individual injuries, says the suit. To remedy T-Mobile's breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the Plan under ERISA to enforce the T-Mobile Defendants' personal liability, to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty occurring during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiff seeks such other Plan-wide equitable or remedial relief for the Plan as the Court may deem appropriate. Plaintiff Harold Miner was a participant in the Plan and invested in the Growth Stock Trust during the Class Period. T-Mobile Defendants are the fiduciaries of the Plan who breached their fiduciary duties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas B. Vertetis, Esq. Christopher E. Love, Esq. PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 909 A Street, Suite 700 Tacoma, Washington 98402 Telephone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (206) 627-0654 E-mail: tom@pcvalaw.com chris@pcvalaw.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. Meghan Heesch, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 300 La Jolla, CA, 92037 Telephone: (619) 577-4253 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 E-mail: cfield@sanfordheisler.com mheesch@sanfordheisler.com - and - Leigh Anne St. Charles, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7000 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 E-mail: lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com TASKUS INC: Court Partly Denies Bid to Dismiss "Estrada" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Nelson Estrada, Allen Joo, Tiba Parsa, Craig Burson, and Tim Reynolds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TaskUs, Inc. and Does 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-04409-ER (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss an amended complaint. TaskUs is a business process outsourcing company that provided offshore customer support services to Coinbase, Inc. Plaintiffs are customers of Coinbase and provided Coinbase their PII, including names, addresses, and social security numbers. Criminal actors started to recruit TaskUs employees to steal the PII in 2024. Those actors caused employees to take pictures of the PII displayed on computers. After receiving the PII, the criminal actors impersonated Coinbase employees and stole over \$400 million from customers. TaskUs moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Regarding negligence and negligent hiring, the Court concluded that such a duty existed. Upon careful examination, the Court assigned the responsibility of care to the entity that can most effectively fulfill that obligation at the lowest cost. According to the Court, Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that TaskUs was in the best position to protect information on its computer systems and supervise its employees to prevent misconduct. The Court further noted the Defendant was sued for a similar breach in 2022 and identified employee fraudulent conduct as a continuing risk in its 2024 Form 10-K. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the negligence claims was denied. Regarding conversion and fraud, the Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that TaskUs employees exercised dominion over the property that was allegedly converted. While employees extracted data, there were no allegations that they exercised dominion over the cryptocurrency itself. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that TaskUs had actual knowledge of the fraud when it allegedly provided assistance. The Court noted that ignorance of red flags of fraud cannot establish actual knowledge of an alleged aider and abettor. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the conversion and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Regarding the breach of implied contract, the Court found no implied contract between the parties for lack of mutual assent because of the lack of a direct relationship between them. The statements in the Defendant's Form 10-K were directed to investors, not Plaintiffs. The Court concluded there was no meeting of the minds on an essential term of the alleged implied contract that TaskUs, rather than anyone else, would safeguard the data. Therefore, the breach of implied contract claim was dismissed. Regarding unjust enrichment, the Court found TaskUs' arguments unavailing. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that a portion of their payments to Coinbase was used to compensate the Defendant for its services and that they suffered damages equal to the difference in value between the services paid for and the services received. The Court found the relationship was not too attenuated and declined to dismiss the claim as duplicative at this stage. Regarding the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege that TaskUs is a business pursuant to the statute. The amended complaint failed to allege any facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that the Defendant determined the purposes and means of the processing of PII. Therefore, the CCPA claim was dismissed. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The conversion, fraud, breach of implied contract, and CCPA claims were dismissed, while the negligence, unjust enrichment, and unfair practice claims were not dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RTbDx3 from PacerMonitor.com TITLE BOXING: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TITLE BOXING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06395 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.titleboxing.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Title Boxing, LLC manufactures sporting and athletic goods. The Company offers boxing gloves, puncing bags, jump ropes, body protectors, tiimers, tape and gauze, apparel, accessories, and related sports products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TOMY INTERNATIONAL: Polino Sues Over Mislabeled Toddler Tower ------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA POLINO; and GRACE PARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOMY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08920 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2026) is a class action arising from the dangerous design and prolonged concealment of a known defect in the Boon PIVOT Collapsible Toddler Tower Products. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold Toddler Towers with a uniform defect that causes them to tip over during ordinary, foreseeable use, posing a serious risk of injury to young children. When purchasing the Products, the Plaintiffs and Class Members trusted Defendant and its representations that the Toddler Towers would be safe to use as intended. Had the Plaintiffs and Class Members known about the Defect, they would not have purchased the Toddler Towers or paid less, says the suit. TOMY International, Inc. of the United States designs, manufactures, and markets toys and nursery products. The Company offers games and game sets for children and adults. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Andreas Moffett, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com amoffett@laukaitislaw.com - and - Mason A Barney, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com TOUCHSOURCE LLC: Faces Nguyen Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOUCHSOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03426 (D. Colo., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on or about March 13, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TouchSource, LLC is a digital display technology company based in Lafayette, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue, Suite 1300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 Email: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1901 Main Street, 18th Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (929) 474-6448 Email: nwilliams@sirillp.com TRUESTAGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Collette Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY COLLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUESTAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00698 (W.D. Wis., July 29, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was indirectly entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to securely store, maintain, and prevent unauthorized access to that information. The complaint relates that on July 15, 2026, Defendant disclosed in a post on its website that it experienced a cybersecurity incident affecting its environment. An unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's computer network and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from Defendant's systems. Due to Defendant TruStage's flawed security measures and its failure to timely detect the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members now face a present, substantial, and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft and must deal with that threat forever, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other members of the Class, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Tammy Collette is a current customer of Defendant, and Defendant obtained Plaintiff's Private Information in the course of its regular business operations. Defendant TruStage Financial Group, Inc. is a financial-services and insurance provider that markets, sells, and administers a wide range of consumer-facing products, including credit insurance, disability insurance, and other lending protection products for auto loans, mechanical repair coverage, payment protection products, and employee-benefit and investment account platforms. Defendant provides financial and insurance services to banks and credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com TRUGOLF HOLDINGS: LaChance Sues Over Securities Sale Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- PARKER LaCHANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of TRUGOLF HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff v. TRUGOLF HOLDINGS, INC.; CHRISTOPHER JONES; B. SHAUN LIMBERS; HUMPHREY P. POLANEN; RILEY RUSSELL; AJ REDMER; HAYNIE & COMPANY; SANDTRAP OPPORTUNITIES LLC; ATW OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND II, L.P.; ATW PARTNERS OPPORTUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; KERRY PROPPER; and ANTONIO RUIZ-GIMENEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00695 (D. Utah, July 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants transferred substantially all of the equity value of TruGolf, a Nasdaq-listed golf technology company with $18.9 million of annual revenue, from its public Class A stockholders to a small group of preferred investors. During the same period, founder insiders retained disproportionate voting power through supervoting Class B shares, and Defendant Christopher Jones separately remained a $2.25 million direct and indirect insider creditor. The challenged structure created two distinct sources of non-ratable leverage. The preferred investors could convert and resell at resetting prices, while Jones retained a $2.25 million related-party creditor position that placed him in a materially different position from public Class A stockholders in any future restructuring. TruGolf's registration statements, proxy statements, and periodic reports materially misdescribed the scale, immediacy, and consequences of the dilution inflicted on the public float, the suit alleges. TruGolf Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides eSports platform of indoor golf simulators for home, office, and training facilities. TruGolf Holdings serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Email: echristiansen@parsonsbehle.com - and - Louis C. Schwartz, Esq. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 81 East Andrews Drive Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 545-1547 Email: lou.schwartz@snalawyers.com TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Turner Sues Over Compromised Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00680 (W.D. Wis., July 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about July 15, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. TruStage Financial Group, Inc. is a financial services and insurance provider, headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com UNITED PARCEL: Anderson Wage and Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as LOREN ANDERSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-09497-2, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma on July 31, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05866 to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts ten causes of action against Defendant including: (1) Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled and Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (5) Willful Withholding of and/or Refusal to Pay Wages; (6) Failure to Accrue, Allow Use of, and Properly Compensate Paid Sick Leave; (7) Failure to Pay Wages Due at Established Pay Periods; (8) Failure to Pay Wages Owed at Termination of Employment; (9) Failure to Furnish Itemized and Complete Wage Statements; and (10) Failure to Maintain Adequate Records. United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping-and-receiving and supply chain management company. The Defendant is represented by: Lea K. Schneider, Esq. 600 University Street, Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-741-1420 E-mail: lschneider@swlaw.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Termination Date Extension Order to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting Class Counsel's motion to extend the termination date of the settlement agreement in the lawsuit entitled J.O.P., et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01944-SAG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Plaintiffs brought this action against the government Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that a May 31, 2019 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memorandum (the "2019 Redetermination Memo"), unlawfully modified policies governing treatment of asylum applications by unaccompanied alien children (UACs), in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On Apr. 10, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the termination date of the settlement agreement, which Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher granted on May 26, 2026. The Court does believe that an extension is warranted to address the unanticipated changed circumstances in the USCIS Hold Memo. Since the Memo's issuance on December 2, 2025, it has applied to at least some portion of the Class. Thus, for the 175 days between its issuance and the date of this opinion, some portion of the Class has been denied the benefit of the Parties' bargain, a full 548-day window during which the Defendants are obligated to adjudicate Class Members' applications on the merits. An extension of the Termination Date equal to the period of deprivation of that benefit is suitably tailored to address the deprivation. Thus, the Court orders that the Termination Date be extended to November 18, 2026. The appellate case is styled as J.O.P. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 26-2013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees J.O.P., et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Elaine Herrmann Blais, Esq. Kevin Jon DeJong, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 - and - Brian Timothy Burgess, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 - and - Michelle Natalia Mendez, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW, Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (410) 929-4720 - and - Stephen Richard Shaw, Esq. SPARK JUSTICE LAW LLC 4045 South Broadway Englewood, CO 80113 Telephone: (303) 802-5390 Defendants-Appellants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are represented by: Richard Gordon Winstead Ingebretsen, Esq. Larissa K. Johnson, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 14271 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 353-5076 (202) 598-9126 - and - Evan Paul Schultz, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 UNITED STATES: Smith Appeals Court Order to the Federal Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS EUGENE SMITH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Thomas Eugene Smith, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01718-CNL, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The suit involves claims brought by Native Americans. The appellate case is styled as Smith v. U.S., Case No. 26-2082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on July 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants THOMAS EUGENE SMITH, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Erick G. Kaardal, Esq. MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, PA 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-1074 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by: Sara E. Costello, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 598-5552 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Tracks Patients' Private Info, Niesen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARGIE NIESEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PHYSICIANS, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03438 (D. Minn., July 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. The case arises from the Defendant's intentional interception and disclosure of its patients' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented and used the Meta/Facebook tracking pixel on its website to track and collect patients' communications on its website. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients suffered injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy, (ii) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Tracking Pixel, (iii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iv) diminution or deprivation of value of the private information, (v) statutory damages, and (vi) the continued and ongoing risk of exposure of their private information. University of Minnesota Physicians is a non-profit hospital headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. Catherine A. Peterson, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 Email: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com kfreier@hechtpartners.com cpeterson@hechtpartners.com - and - Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, PC 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Patterson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES D. PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00740-DRC (S.D. Ohio, July 28, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information (together, "Private Information") culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information with which it was entrusted in connection with providing services to healthcare providers. As a result of the Defendant's negligence and deficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the suit alleges. Unlimited Technology Systems, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes providing computer programming services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S, Ste 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Matlock Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTHA MATLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNLIMITED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC; and MARY BIRD PERKINS CANCER CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00729-MWM (S.D. Ohio, July 24, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who indirectly entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendants collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. Unlimited Technology Systems, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes providing computer programming services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com VALVOLINE US RETAIL: Removes Perri Suit to E.D. Mich. ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of LARRY PERRI; and JOHN ARCHIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VALVOLINE US RETAIL SERVICES LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Michigan, County of Wayne (Case No. 26-010815-CZ) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on July 28, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Michigan assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-12600-MAG-EAS. The case is assigned to Mark A. Goldsmith, and referred to Magistrate Elizabeth A Stafford. Valvoline US Retail Services LLC operates the Valvoline Instant Oil Change quick-lubrication network in the United States. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Krista L. Lenart, Esq. Robert H. Ellis, Esq. Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 203-0796 Email: klenart@dykema.com rellis@dykema.com nramin@dykema.com VERIDA INC: Walker Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIDA, INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00156-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2026) arises from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The complaint relates that the Defendant employed hourly, non-exempt employees with a number of job titles, including, but not limited to, Customer Service Representative, Bilingual Customer Service Representative, Special Services Representative, and Dispatcher, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Representatives"). Defendant employed its Representatives in brick-and-mortar contact centers and remotely throughout the United States. Defendant relied heavily on Representatives to communicate with participants, healthcare providers, transportation providers, and program stakeholders, respond to inquiries, requests and complaints, assist with transportation-related services (i.e. scheduled transportation reservations), and document and log information concerning those interactions in Defendant's systems. Regardless of the specific job title, all Representatives: (1) were paid on an hourly basis; (2) classified as non-exempt employees; (3) regularly worked 40 or more hours per workweek; (4) used the same timekeeping system; (5) used many (if not all) of the same computer programs; (6) were subject to the same relevant timekeeping and attendance policies; and (7) had the primary job duty of providing assistance to Defendant's clients. Throughout their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and other Representatives were required to work substantial amounts of uncompensated, off-the-clock time as part of their job duties. Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its Representatives for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts, which resulted in Representatives not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a judgment awarding them unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs to make them and the putative Collective and Class whole for damages they suffered, and any other remedies to which they are entitled, and to help ensure Defendant will not subject future workers to the same illegal conduct in the future. Plaintiff Kayla Walker was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Representative. Defendant Verida, Inc. is a non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 119 East Court Square, Suite 205 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com VOLUME SERVICES: Wilson Sues Over Work Discrimination, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAITLIN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SODEXO, Defendant, Case No. N26C-07-310 CLS (Del. Super., July 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for pregnancy and sex discrimination in violation of the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a full-time Event Planner and Catering Sales Coordinator at the Defendant's Chase Center on the Riverfront location in Wilmington, Delaware on August 9, 2023. Volume Services, Inc., doing business as Sodexo, is a global corporation that provides food service, hospitality, and facilities management services based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam F. Wasserman, Esq. Alisyn L. Davis, Esq. CICONTE WASSERMAN LLC 1300 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-7101 Email: awasserman@cwdelaw.com WEWORK INC: Price Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------- CAROL PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEWORK INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06436 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2026) alleges violation of the California's Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, WeWork markets "workspace solutions" such as renting desks and office spaces at co-working locations through its website, found at https://wework.com. The Defendant has installed and deployed software developed by a California-registered data broker, LiveRamp Holdings, Inc., on the website to secretly collect data about visitors, their devices, locations and views of webpages to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track them on an ongoing basis. Both Defendant and LiveRamp benefit commercially and financially from this activity. They benefit because collected visitor data, and the identification of visitors using that data, are used to, among other things, target Website visitors for specific marketing. LiveRamp benefits because it uses the data to, inter alia, compile more comprehensive profiles of visitors, which it may sell to third parties for advertising and other purposes, says the suit. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent or authorization therefore violated the state law, the suit asserts. WeWork Inc. provides co-working spaces for individuals and entrepreneurs. The Company offers private offices, office suites, headquarters, and custom build out options to fit a variety of office needs, as well as desk spaces and conference rooms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 90 Broad St., Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 702-8670 Facsimile: (213) 927-9270 Email: eshapiro@taulersmith.com rtauler@taulersmith.com WISE COMPANY: Becker Files Suit Over Unpaid Termination Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN BECKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WISE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01171 (W.D. Tenn., August 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay amounts owed to its employees upon termination. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was terminated along with approximately 130 other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on July 30, 2026, and within 30 days of that date. The Defendant failed to give Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant at least 60 days' advance notice of their terminations, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), says the suit. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant seek their statutory remedies, pursuant to the WARN Act. Plaintiff also brings a claim under Tennessee state law for Defendant's failure to pay wages immediately upon discharge, including penalties, and under other similar state laws applicable to the similarly situated employees. Plaintiff Bryan Becker worked for Defendant as a computer numerical control operator. Defendant The Wise Company, LLC operates a business that produces OEM and aftermarket seats for boats and other equipment, with its principal place of business located at 670 Industrial Road, Savannah, TN 38372.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Moore Collins, Esq. HMC CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, PLLC 302 Peachtree St. Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615)-724-1996 E-mail: heather@hmccivilrights.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com YAMADA NORTH: Conditional Class Cert. Filing Due Jan. 8, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD KENDALL, v. YAMADA NORTH AMERICA INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00012-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Rose entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Required disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): Aug. 14, 2026 2. Discovery cut-off related to putative members of the class and and collective action: Dec. 9, 2026 3. Cut-off date for filing motion for conditional class certification: Jan. 8, 2027 Further, a Telephone Scheduling Conference shall be set upon this Court's ruling of the motion for conditional class certification. A preliminary pretrial conference in this case was held as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 by a telephone conference call at 10:00 a.m. on July 28, 2026. The Defendant is a supplier of automotive parts. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=emTKa7 at no extra charge.[CC] YOULEND US: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kirakosyan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ VAHAN KIRAKOSYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOULEND US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04174-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 24, 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. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to ensure that it would maintain adequate safeguards to protect its customers' Private Information. Due to the Defendant's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. YouLend US LLC operate as a financing platform providing flexible funding solutions for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com ZANDER GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. "CHIP" JONES, II, v. ZANDER GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00687 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered a judgment that will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court will deny the Motion to the extent that it asks the Court to dismiss for lack of standing, but will grant the Motion to the extent that it asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims (Counts I-VII) on the merits. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged factual matter plausibly suggesting that Defendants withheld any documents from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1024(b)(4). Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion as it relates to Plaintiff's document claim (Count III). In addition, Count V fails because it is a mere request for relief, and not a cause of action that (if valid) could support relief; a mere request for relief (unlike a validly pleaded cause of action) does not plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief as required by Iqbal and Twombly. Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion as it relates to the Plaintiff's Claim for equitable and injunctive relief (Count V). The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and in the alternative, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, "due to the Defendants' malfeasance with regard to [Plaintiff's] rights under two deferred compensation plans governed by ERISA." Zander is the parent or holding entity associated with Zander Insurance Group, a long-standing, family- and employee-owned independent insurance brokerage based in Nashville, Tennessee. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pwCJcC at no extra charge.[CC] ZULILY LLC: Smith Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JITTANIA SMITH, et al., v. ZULILY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01480-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Court certifies the following classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): a. On Count I, "all employees of Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) whose employment was separated on Dec. 13, 2023; (ii) who did not receive 60 days of advance notice of their separation or pay-in-lieu-of notice; and (iii) who did not continue employment with Defendant Zulily, LLC as part of its transition into an assignment for the benefit of creditors (the "December Federal WARN Act Class")." The Plaintiffs Jittania Smith, Alex Douglas, and Samuel Prestwood are appointed as class representatives for the December Federal WARN Act class. b. On Count I, "all employees of Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) whose employment was separated on Oct. 25, 2023; and (ii) who did not receive 60 days of advance notice of their separation or pay-in-lieu-ofnotice (the "October Federal WARN Act Class")." The Plaintiffs Kathryn Costello and Kirel Ahn are appointed as class representatives for the October Federal WARN Act Class. c. On Count II, "all employees of Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) who are members of the December Federal WARN Act Class or October Federal WARN Act Class; and (ii) who were living and/or working in the State of Washington at the time of their separation (the "Washington State Class")." The Plaintiffs Jittania Smith and Kathryn Costello are appointed as class representatives for the Washington State Class. d. On Counts III and IV, "all employees of Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) who are members of the December Federal WARN Act Class or October Federal WARN Act Class; and (ii) who were living and/or working in the State of Ohio at the time of their separation (the "Ohio State Class")." The Plaintiffs Alex Douglas and Samuel Prestwood are appointed as class representatives for the Ohio State Class. e. On Count V, "all employees of Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) who are members of the December Federal WARN Act Class or October Federal WARN Act Class; and (ii) who were living and/or working in the State of Nevada at the time of their separation (the "Nevada State Class")." The Plaintiff Kirel Ahn is appointed as class representative for the Nevada State Class. 2. Under Rule 23(c) and Rule 23(g), the Court appoints as class counsel the following attorneys: Jason E. Starling, John C. Camillus, and Jason A. Rittereiser (collectively, "Class Counsel"). 3. No later than Aug. 11, 2026, the parties must meet and confer and then submit to the Court for its approval a proposed written notice to class members that complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B). If the parties cannot agree on a proposed written notice, then they should submit competing written notices for the Court’s consideration no later than Aug. 11, 2026. Within fourteen days of this Court's approval of the written notice, Class Counsel shall promptly distribute the written notice to all class members through Unites States mail at their last known address in the records of Defendants. Zulily is an American e-commerce website. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ziOcD1 at no extra charge.[CC] ZUMBA FITNESS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by August 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE KUEPPERS; and WATANYA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZUMBA FITNESS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61983-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of the deadline to reply in support of their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their class certification motion on or before August 10, 2026. Zumba Fitness provides fitness products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0CcvYZ at no extra charge.[CC] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Has 3,513 Pending Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Genuine Parts Company has reported 3,513 pending asbestos lawsuits as of June 30, 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The amount accrued for pending and future claims was $294 million as of June 30, 2026, which represented our best estimate of the liability within our calculated range of $240 million to $372 million, discounted using a discount rate of 4.44%. The amount accrued for pending and future claims was $317 million as of December 31, 2025, which represented our best estimate of the liability within our calculated range of $258 million to $397 million, discounted using a discount rate of 4.18%. Our undiscounted product liability was $375 million and $398 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. There have been no significant developments to the information presented in our 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K with respect to litigation or commitments and contingencies. "We hold insurance policies that cover some asbestos settlements and defense costs. Annually, we conduct an insurance exhaustion study to model expected recoveries for pending and future claims, and we adjust the insurance receivable balance to reflect the present value of these recoveries. Our receivable for estimated insurance recoveries related to pending and future claims was $36 million and $38 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5dw857fj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Insurance Still Defends A&E Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hartford Insurance Group, Inc. continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or products allegedly containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs. "The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to accident years prior to 1986 that are reported in Property & Casualty Other Operations ("Run-off A&E"). In addition, since 1986, the Company has written A&E exposures under general liability policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported in the Business Insurance and Personal Insurance segments, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/phzhkjyr ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J offers $5.5BB to Settle Talc Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Berg of Law360 Bankruptcy Authority reports that Johnson & Johnson said it will pay $5.5 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming its talcum powder products caused ovarian cancer, ending years of contentious litigation over one of its best-known consumer products. The agreement follows repeated efforts by the healthcare giant to resolve the claims through bankruptcy proceedings that were ultimately rejected by the courts. The settlement covers a significant share of the ovarian cancer lawsuits filed against the company and is intended to provide compensation to claimants while avoiding prolonged courtroom battles. Johnson & Johnson continues to deny any wrongdoing, insisting that extensive scientific research supports the safety of its talc-based products and disputes allegations that they were contaminated with asbestos, the report states. The proposed resolution would bring greater certainty to both the company and claimants by replacing years of litigation with a structured settlement process. The agreement also represents a major milestone in Johnson & Johnson's effort to move beyond the extensive legal liabilities arising from its historical talc business, according to Law360. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Defends PI Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical products have contained components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025." "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $11 million to $31 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amount of $11 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related recoveries of approximately $3 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, which is principally included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3687yaab ********* 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 ***