260504.mbx

260504.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 4, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 88 Headlines 223 WEST CORP: Faces Rios Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. 27TH STREET: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation 3M COMPANY: Court Junks Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline AC OCEAN WALK: Faces Colon Suit Over Labor Law Violations ALAIR ENTERPRISES: Kowitz Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Arroyo Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ALEXANDRIA REAL: Albuquerque Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed ALEXANDRIA REAL: Continues to Defend Hern Securities Class Suit ALEXANDRIA REAL: Continues to Defend Tabone Derivative Suit ALOHAT LLC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Middleton Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Cohen Files Suit in D. Minnesota APPLE INC: Court Stays Edwards Class Suit ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert. Filing Extended to Jan. 22, 2027 AUDIBLE INC: Hollis Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6 BANK OF AMERICA: Logwood Alleges Cryptocurrency Fraudulent Scheme BENELUX CORP: Appeals Class Certification & Summary Judgment Order BEST OF HARLEM GRADE: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises BLACKWATER MANAGEMENT: Bailey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Briefing Schedule Entered in Davis Suit BOLTON US: Deinnocentes Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOSTONIAN TOWING SERVICE: Duff Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Removes Brewer Suit to C.D. Calif. BROOMFIELD: Class Certification in Nickerson Suit Deferred C9 ALLIANCE INC: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Student Class in Fisk Certified CAPITAL PROVISIONS: Camacho Seeks Non-Exempt Workers' Unpaid Wages CARDONE CAPITAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pino Suit to 9th Cir. CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Brookner Files Suit in S.D. Florida CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Cole Files Suit in S.D. Florida CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Pottle Files Suit in S.D. Florida CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Vasquez Files Suit in S.D. Florida CENTRAL RESEARCH: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Melenudo Says CENTURION HEALTH: Montgomery Bid to Certify Class Nixed CETERA FINANCIAL: Collier Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info CETERA FINANCIAL: Jenkins Balks at Unprotected Personal Info CHEMOURS CO: Bid to Exclude Albright's Testimony Partly OK'd CIGNA HEALTH: Stipulated Discovery Plan Partly OK'd CLOUDINARY INC: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Data Security Failures CLUB MED SALES: Erwin Email Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. COMPASS GROUP: Mehlberg Bid to Unseal Class Cert. Brief OK'd COMPASS GROUP: Seeks Reconsideration of April 9 Order COMPASS OF MIAMI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Colmenares Alleges CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Continues to Defend Meza Stockholder Suit COOKEVILLE REGIONAL: Evans Sues Over Data Security Failure CORPORACION ELECTRICA: Seeks More Time to File Opposition COTY INC: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge CREATE WELLNESS: Connolly Sues Over Falsely Advertised Gummies CURIO EMPLOYER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response D.H. PACE: Underpays Company Employees, Friend Alleges DEMPSEY OIL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chen Suit Claims DENTSPLY SIRONA: Philipps Balks at Deceptive Product Ads DIGNITY HEALTH: Walker's Class Allegations Dismissed DOREL JUVENILE GROUP: Gonzales Sues over Fictitious Regular Prices DTO ALTERATIONS: Ayala Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violation EB5 AFFILIATE: Saurabh Alleges Fraud, Fiduciary Duties Breach ELAN INT'L: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Deinnocentes Says ELECOM USA: Douglass Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal ELLAFI FEDERAL: Fraulino Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice EMERITUS CORP: Case Management Conference in Adame Due August 11 EMM LOANS: Class Settlement in Lehrbach Suit Gets Prelim Nod ENOVIX CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in Securities Suit Tossed EQUIFAX INFO: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd ERMINIA RESTAURANT: David Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages EVOLVE BANK: Class Cert Bid in Margul Due March 17, 2027 EXPERIAN DATA: Class Cert. Expert Disclosures Due Nov. 20 EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Eagle Alleges EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters 449 Seeks to Certify Class Action FEDCAP REHABILITATION: Harvey Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages FEDERAL EXPRESS: Yamamoto Bid for Class Certification Tossed FERRO DEVELOPMENT: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property FERROGLOBE USA: Stalnaker Seeks Equipment Operators' Unpaid OT FIRECUT LLC: Faces Ford Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIRMENICH INC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices FIVE BELOW: Class Cert. Oral Argument in Himes Set for May 28 FLAGSTAR BANK: Bids for Summary Judgment in Solomon Suit Tossed FLAGSTAR BANK: Solomon Suit Seeks to Certify Class FLAME INVESTMENTS: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages FLYNN RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, De Leon Says FOOD SYSTEMS: Class Cert Deadlines Adjourned in Enguerra Suit FORD MOTOR: Dolan Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid FRASIER ENTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Freeman Says FUTURE US LLC: Scarlett Suit Removed to N.D. California GAVIN NEWSOM: Taylor Class Certification Bid Tossed GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Suit GEORGIA HERITAGE: Gamble Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. GEORGIA HERITAGE: McEwen Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Cert. Filing in Ahumada Continued to June 8 GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Amended Bid to Certify Collective Tossed GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Amended Bid to Certify Collective Tossed GKN DRIVELINE: Court Partly Denies Bid to Amend "Ayers" Complaint GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Amended Bid to Certify Class Tossed GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT: Harper Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GOPHER RESOURCE: B.A. Suit Removed to M.D. Florida GRADO LABS INC: Cesario Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GREYSON CLOTHIERS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GRID ONE: Settlement Deal in Scott Class Suit Gets Final Nod GUARANTEED HOME: Ocampo Wins Bid for FLSA Conditional Cert H&M FASHION USA: Verduzco Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California H&M FASHION: Aguirre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HALLISEY & D AGOSTINO: Jackson Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. HALLISEY & D'AGOSTINO: Jehnings Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. HARBOR GROUP: Illegally Charges Tenants Junk Fees, Nesladek Says HARRISON RURAL: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Harris Says HERTZ CORPORATION: Class Cert Discovery in Sconce Due Dec. 13 HOBBY LOBBY STORES: Ellis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California INTEGRITY VEHICLE: Weaver Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Antitrust Suits in California Court IOWA HEALTH: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pay IRVING, TX: Faces Nix Suit Over Unlawful Detention Policy J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. J.E.T. LIMOUSINES: McGhee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action JAVY COFFEE: Nelson Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages JAY BUTLER: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users JEROME HARRIS: Class Settlement in CarMichael Gets Prelim. Nod JOSEPH EDLOW: Standing Order in Gangapuram Entered JRK PROPERTY: Faces Fongaro Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info KARDIA TRANSPORT: Acevedo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Fammous Due July 8 KEMPER CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kozuszek Suit Says KENNEDY MART: Cedeno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KROGER CO: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to Dec. 3 L&W SUPPLY: Solares Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. LAB LOGISTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Couriers, Yousseff Suit Claims LAS VEGAS, NV: Myers Suit Seeks Class Certification LINCOLN PROPERTY: Spence Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info LKQ CORP: Miami GESE Sues Over Losses Following Uni-Select Merger LOANUNITED.COM: Huff Seeks to Stay Claims Pending Arbitration MACYS RETAIL: Parties Must File Proposed Scheduling Order MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in CICH Suit MAT KING: Class Discovery & Certification Order Entered in Lindke MCCORMICK COUNTY, SC: Class Cert Bid Replies Due May 8 in Coker MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Hossain Seeks to File Docs Under Seal MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Hossain Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid MEDIASTAR LTD: Hossain Seeks to Certify Account Holder Class MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Nair Seeks Initial OK of Settlement MEDVI LLC: Faces J.F. Suit Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info MERCY HEALTH: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective METACORP LLC: Hall Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia MIDLAND NATIONAL: Zimmerman Class Cert. Reply Due May 28 MISSISSIPPI STONE COUNTY: Sencial Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Kruzel Gets Initial Nod MONDAY SWIMWEAR: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Settlement Deal in Gay Suit Gets Final Nod NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Michael E Kasaba Sues Over Deceptive Charges NBT BANCORP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NESTLE PURINA: Class Settlement Prelim. Approval Bid Tossed NESTLE WATERS: Patane Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid NEW YORK: Bid for Class Certification Filing Due July 20 NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Ewing Suit Gets Prelim. Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Russ Suit Gets Prelim. Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Wade Suit Gets Prelim. Nod NEWTON COUNTY SCHOOL: McCarthy Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification NINTENDO: Must Return Tariff-Related Overcharges, Hoffert Says NISSAN NORTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Elias Due Sept. 18 NISSAN NORTH: Loses Bid to Dismiss Wilson Suit NORDSTROM INC: Cordero Suit Removed to N.D. California NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Bid in DRNC Suit NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Finn Suit Removed to N.D. California NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Williams Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. NPAS SOLUTIONS LLC: Kline Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia NUTRIEN LTD: Fillingim Sues Over Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme NUTRIEN LTD: Red River Sues Over Fertilizer Products' Conspiracy OFFICE DEPOT: McGonigle Suit Seeks to Certify Class ONESTOP COMMERCIAL: Ulloa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. OPAL CAMERA INC: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OPERA EVENT: Orea Sues Over Illegal Sale of Digital Assets ORRICK HERRINGTON: Casillas Sues Over Unprotected Private Info PAPA JOHN'S: Gershzon et al. Sue Over Private Info Disclosure PARK MY FLEET: Scheduling Conference in McKnight Set for May 28 PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses PGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint Lodged PHH MORTGAGE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Graham PINNACLE DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Alfaro Says PIO PIO: Court Conditionally Certifies "Lopez" FLSA Suit PIO PIO: Lopez Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification POST CONSUMER BRANDS: Panossian Suit Removed to C.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Continued to August 13 PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Rodriguez Seeks Leave to File Reply RCI HOSPITALITY: Galica Sues Over Unlawfully Kept Tips and Wages REDFIN CORP: Gallardo Suit Alleges Privacy Violations REDLINE CAPITAL: Bentley Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline REGAL CLAIM: Faces Molloy Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Camp Files Suit in D. Kansas RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Murchison Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas RHOBACK INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ROBERT BOSCH: Conspires to Fix HVAC Equipment Prices, Suit Says ROCKFORCE LLC: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ROEHL TRANSPORT: Conditional Class Cert. Extended to May 15 ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 11 RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Rodriguez Balks at Diversion of Public Funds S&P GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Investment Losses Suit in Australia SAIA INC: Joint Status Report Due May 26 SAINT FRANCIS: Faces Wilson Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan SERENE GARDENS: Jolly Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Notice SHIFTSMART INC: Lucania Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Herrick Seeks Rule 24 Class Certification SIMON PROPERTY: Linder Balks at Unfair Use of Surveillance Cameras SLAUSON EXTRASPACE: Standing Order Entered in Ingraham Class Suit SONOS INC: Cesario Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPROUT ORGANICS: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPROUT ORGANICS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Says ST. LOUIS, MN: Faces Dearn Suit Over Unlawful Surveillance Cameras SUN BUM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Alleges TANISHA SYSTEMS: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. TAQUERIA SABOR: Urbina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation TEMPUS AI: Fails to Secure Genetic Information, Farrier Says TI COMMUNITIES: Muhammad Balks at Unpaid OT, Biometric Collection TIMES INTERNET: Class Settlement in Kishore Suit Gets Initial Nod TOTAL DIRECTIONAL: Underpays MWD Engineers, Spears Suit Alleges TRUPANION INC: Charges Illegal Administrative Fees, Wood Says UNITED HEALTH: Pediatric Clinic Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Rebound Physical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Southeast Kansas Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Teresa Schroeder Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Reconsider Jan. 28 Order Tossed UNITED PARCEL: Kulzhanova Alleges Unfair Tariff Fees' Collection UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Court's Prelim. Injunction in HCR UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Woods Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Class in "Phillips" Partly Certified VENEZUELA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition VITA COCO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Suit Says WALGREEN EASTERN: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Monks Suit WASHINGTON NATIONALS: NCL's Bid to Intervene Partly OK'd WERNER BUS: Terminates Employees Without Proper Notice, Cruz Says WESTPORT LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Holekamp YOUTH OPPORTUNITY: Hardaway Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ZENBUSINESS INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Michail Says ********* 223 WEST CORP: Faces Rios Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RIOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 223 WEST CORP.; 692 10TH AVENUE LLC; IT'S HIM LLC, solely as a successor-liability defendant; MICHAEL J. MCGRAIL; ROBERT S. BARBERO; JOSEPH J. FONTECCHIO; RONALD ANDERSON; JOHN DOE "FRANCO", JOHN DOES 1 10; and JOHN DOE SUCCESSOR ENTITIES 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03134 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for Plaintiff's unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours pay, statutory wage notice damages, statutory wage-statement damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him lawful wages for all hours worked, failed to pay spread-of-hours compensation failed to provide the hiring notice required by NYLL, and failed to provide compliant wage statements required by NYLL. The Plaintiff worked as a bartender and related hospitality worker for Defendants at one or more Manhattan bar locations, including Rebar in Chelsea and the 692 Tenth Avenue location that operated as Thirst and/or later Frankie's Pub. 223 West Corp. is a New York domestic business corporation that operates and owns Rebar bar/tavern located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 27TH STREET: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. 27TH STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC and LETTUCE & TOMATO RESTAURANT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22619-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 16, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property, to include visits to the Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial Property on February 17, 2026 and again on February 18, 2026, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, and business located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and business within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendants, 27TH STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC, and LETTUCE & TOMATO RESTAURANT, LLC, own and/or operate places of public accommodation all of which are located together in the same commercial plaza property located in Miami, Florida that are the subject of this Action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Primary E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mails: yabdalla@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Court Junks Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Varline, Jayden et al., v. The 3M Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-00859 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Dec. 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs motion for extension of time to move the class certification deadlines by 60 days. The court expects parties to take discovery with an eye towards meeting deadlines. If parties delay in taking discovery or fail to act with diligence, that is not a reason to grant extensions, particularly large ones that would compromise the overall schedule. Discovery has been open since July 2025 and the current schedule was finalized October 2025. Upon reviewing the record, the court is left with the impression that plaintiffs could have taken the listed discovery earlier, even accounting for cold weather, which is a predictable phenomenon in Wisconsin. The court needs to leave sufficient time to consider and rule on class certification issues before the dispositive motion deadline. Plaintiffs' 60-day extension would not leave sufficient time. For these reasons, the motion is denied. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. 3M is a global, diversified technology company.[CC] AC OCEAN WALK: Faces Colon Suit Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- LYDIA M. COLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AC OCEAN WALK LLC d/b/a OCEAN CASINO RESORT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04525 (D.N.J., April 24, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in July 2018. Between July 2018 and 2021, the Plaintiff worked as a table games dealer. From approximately 2021 to the present, the Plaintiff has worked as a dual rate supervisor, earning a direct cash wage of approximately $8.50 per hour as a dealer, and $31.79 per hour as a dual rate supervisor. The Plaintiff now brings this class action against the Defendant and alleges that the Defendant's mandatory tip pool was invalid because it Defendant did not meet with those requirements under the FLSA & NJWHL minimum wage exception. Among other things, the Plaintiff maintains that the has retained dealer tips to defray its own expenses by paying them tips from the tip pool for performing the administrative function of counting tips, says the suit. Headquartered in New Jersey, AC Ocean Walk LLC operates a casino and provides gambling, entertainment, and hospitality services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com ALAIR ENTERPRISES: Kowitz Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY E. KOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALAIR ENTERPRISES USA, INC.; ALAIR ENTERPRISES USA HOLDINGS, INC.; ROB CECIL; KATRINA MCLAUCHLAN; DUANE JOHNS; STU HOPEWELL; BLAIR MCDANIEL; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01235-X (N.D. Tex., April 16, 2026) arises from the Defendant's deceptive marketing scheme that constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, Alair operates a deceptive marketing scheme through which it sells the veneer of a premium builder while delivering the services of undercapitalized, underqualified general contractors operating without meaningful quality oversight and using substandard labor. This Complaint seeks redress for thousands of homeowners across the United States and the State of Texas who were victimized by Defendants' wrongful conduct. Alair's scheme operates by requiring a small general contractor to pay an upfront investment or franchise fee, followed by ongoing annual fees tied to revenue, in exchange for the right to use the Alair brand and its marketing package. These contractors -- which Alair calls "regional partners" -- are required to meet annual revenue goals of $5 million or face termination. In return, they receive a standardized set of marketing materials, contract templates, bid documents, and training designed and controlled from Alair's corporate offices. The regional partners then market themselves to homeowners under the Alair name, leveraging the brand's false representations of being a premium, high-end builder. Through their fraudulent marketing scheme, the Defendants have used the United States mail and interstate wire facilities to disseminate false advertising, transmit fraudulent bids and contracts, collect payments, and coordinate the enterprise's operations across 109 offices in 13 U.S. states and 5 Canadian provinces, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Kowitz contracted with an Alair regional partner for a major renovation of his home at 7435 Kenshire Lane, Dallas, Texas. Alair Enterprises USA, Inc. is a custom home building and large-scale renovation/remodeling company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel E. Joyner, Esq. Forrest Colby Roberts, Esq. Kaitlyn Q. McCall, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 545-3474 Facsimile: (214) 545-3473 E-mail: sjoyner@fbtgibbons.com croberts@bftgibbons.com kmccall@fbtgibbons.com ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Arroyo Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID FERRER ARROYO is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled David Ferrer Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08935-ODW-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers who purchased a gift card from an Albertsons owned store, for a specified monetary amount, and who were not able to access the total monetary amount of gift card value purchased, because the total monetary amount was not available on the gift card after purchase. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 17, 2025. On Aug. 19, 2025, Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 6, 2025. On Mar. 12, 2026, Judge Wright entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend. The appellate case is styled as Arroyo v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-2266, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 13, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 20, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 26, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID FERRER ARROYO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Joshua Adam Fields, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendants-Appellees ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., et al. are represented by: Sascha Von Mende Henry, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 ALEXANDRIA REAL: Albuquerque Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland stayed the De Albuquerque stockholder derivative suit pending resolution to dismiss in the securities class suit. On February 3, 2026, stockholder derivative action was filed against certain officers and directors of the Company, with the Company named as a nominal defendant, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (captioned De Albuquerque Torres v. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., et al.). The derivative complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations similar to those in the securities class action and seek damages and other relief on behalf of the Company. On April 8, 2026, the Maryland derivative action was stayed pending resolution of any motion to dismiss in the securities class action. The Company does not believe the derivative complaints state any meritorious claims and intends to defend these cases vigorously, and at this time cannot predict the outcome of these matters or reasonably estimate the amount or range of any possible loss, if any, and therefore has not recorded an accrual related to these matters. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. is an urban office real estate investment trust focused on collaborative life science, agtech and technology campuses in key innovation cluster locations. The company acquires, develops and manages properties primarily leased to life science and technology tenants. ALEXANDRIA REAL: Continues to Defend Hern Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hern securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 25, 2025, a securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 15, 2026, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions related to the Company's business performance and real estate impairment charges (captioned Hern v. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., et al.). The amended complaint seeks damages and other relief on behalf of investors who acquired the Company's securities between January 30, 2024 and December 5, 2025. The Company does not believe the amended complaint states any meritorious claims and intends to defend this case vigorously. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. is an urban office real estate investment trust focused on collaborative life science, agtech and technology campuses in key innovation cluster locations. The company acquires, develops and manages properties primarily leased to life science and technology tenants. ALEXANDRIA REAL: Continues to Defend Tabone Derivative Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Tabone stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On March 25, 2026, stockholder derivative action was filed against certain officers and directors of the Company, with the Company named as a nominal defendant, in United States District Court for the Central District of California (captioned Tabone v. Moglia, et al.). The derivative complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations similar to those in the securities class action and seek damages and other relief on behalf of the Company. The Company does not believe the derivative complaints state any meritorious claims and intends to defend these cases vigorously, and at this time cannot predict the outcome of these matters or reasonably estimate the amount or range of any possible loss, if any, and therefore has not recorded an accrual related to these matters. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. is an urban office real estate investment trust focused on collaborative life science, agtech and technology campuses in key innovation cluster locations. The company acquires, develops and manages properties primarily leased to life science and technology tenants. ALOHAT LLC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Alohat, LLC d/b/a Melin, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02262 (D. Minn., April 16, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.melin.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota, damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Alohat, LLC offers hats and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, baseball hats, caddy hats, visors, beanies, hat travel cases, stickers, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Middleton Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY MIDDLETON and GEORGE A. LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of the AMENTUM 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN and DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. AMENTUM GOVERNMENT SERVICES PARENT HOLDINGS LLC, et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending their deadline to file a reply brief in support of their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel up to and including May 4, 2026. Counsel for the Plaintiffs has been diligently working on the reply brief, but due to the press of other matters, it seeks a short extension of time to complete the brief. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay, and neither party will be prejudiced by this extension, nor will the requested extension cause delay of any other pending deadlines in this matter. There is currently no Phase II Scheduling Order in place, nor is there a trial or other dispositive motion deadline that would be impacted by the requested extension of time. The Plaintiffs have not sought any prior extensions of the reply brief deadline. On March 25, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On April 15, 2026, the Defendants filed their response in opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion. Amentum provides technical and engineering services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wXfBul at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Boyd A. Byers, Esq. Teresa Shulda, Esq. Samuel J. Walenz, Esq. Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. Rachel N. Gonzales, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9716 Facsimile: (316) 771-6011 E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com tshulda@foulston.com swalenz@foulston.com snehrbass@foulston.com rgonzales@foulston.com AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Cohen Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameriprise Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Charmian Cohen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02358-PJS-JFD (D. Minn., April 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Ameriprise Financial -- https://www.ameriprise.com/ -- is a longstanding leader in financial planning and advice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com APPLE INC: Court Stays Edwards Class Suit ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edwards v. Apple, Inc. et al, Case No. 5:24-cv-05795-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order that: 1. This action shall be stayed, and all case deadlines shall be held in abeyance, through Sept. 4, 2026; provided, however, that the Parties retain the right to conduct discovery reasonably necessary to informed mediation including the use of third-party subpoenas; 2. The Parties will submit a joint status report on or before June 26, 2026 to inform the Court of the status of pre-mediation data collection and production, including the status of the Parties' third-party subpoena requests; 3. The Parties will submit a further joint status report on or before Sept. 4, 2026, informing the Court of the status of their efforts to resolve this action through mediation and, if mediation is unsuccessful, proposing an updated case schedule with a summer 2027 trial date. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9qsvbt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron K. Block, Esq. Max Marks, Esq. THE BLOCK FIRM LLC 309 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 997-8419 E-mail: aaron@blockfirmllc.com max.marks@blockfirmllc.com - and - Candice L. Fields, Esq. CANDICE FIELDS LAW, PC 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1620 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 414-8050 E-mail: cfields@candicefieldslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Chris Johnstone, Esq. Jennifer Milici, Esq. Alan Schoenfeld, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 E-mail: chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com jennifer.milici@wilmerhale.com alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert. Filing Extended to Jan. 22, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA FURMAN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01575-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Calabretta entered an order extending the scheduling order deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Fact Discovery Jan. 29, 2027 Expert Discovery: August 1, 2027 Class Certification Motion Filing Deadline: Jan. 22, 2027 Class Certification Hearing Deadline: March 4, 2027, at 1:30 PM Jury Trial May 8, 2028, at 8:30 AM The Defendant is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N88nck at no extra charge.[CC] AUDIBLE INC: Hollis Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHON HOLLIS, JEFFREY BILLINGS, OLGA VOLSKAYA, and COLLEEN MITCHEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUDIBLE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01999-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification as follows: Nationwide class: "All U.S. residents who, between Dec. 4, 2020, and the date of class notice, received Audible credits that expired." The proposed class representatives are Jonathon Hollis, Jeffrey Billings, Olga Volskaya, and Colleen Mitchel. The class asserts claims under Washington’s Gift Certificate Law, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and Quasi-contract (unjust enrichment). Subclasses: Audible expires credits: (1) 12 months after issue, or (2) when a member cancels. Audible has some different arguments about whether the Gift Certificate Law covers credits that Audible expires when a member cancels, as opposed to those that expire 12 months after issue. Subclasses "expedite resolution of the case by segregating a distinct legal issue that is common to some members of the existing class.:" To segregate Audible's arguments about the different ways that credits expire, Plaintiffs propose two subclasses: Expired after 12 months Subclass: "Class members whose credits expired 12 months after issue." The subclass representatives are Jeffrey Billings, Olga Volskaya, and Colleen Mitchel. Expired upon cancellation Subclass: "Class members whose credits expired when they cancelled their Audible membership." The subclass representative is Jonathon Hollis. The case turns on applying the definition of "gift certificate" to Audible credits. This definition is the same classwide. The benefits and expiration terms of Audible credits are the same classwide. Class members were harmed in the same way (lost credits). Plaintiffs' damages are logically connected to their theory of liability. And an injunction and declaratory relief would benefit the class as a whole. It makes no sense for over class members to be left to individually litigate these common issues in small claims court. The Defendant sells audiobooks online. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EtRJao at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Gabriel Doble, Esq. Stephen Ferruolo, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com gabe@dovel.com sferruolo@dovel.com BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castellon v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 6:26-cv-00021 (M.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 5, 2026), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting in part Plaintiff's motion to unopposed motion to extend the class certification deadline. The parties' case management report proposed a May 6, 2027, deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification. To ensure the orderly progression of this case, the court selected an earlier date. Given the representations in Plaintiff's motion, the court concludes that there is good cause to extend the class certification deadline to May 6, 2027. The nature of suit states Right to Financial Privacy Act. The Defendant offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, and mortgage services.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Logwood Alleges Cryptocurrency Fraudulent Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC LOGWOOD, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00820-CDS-DJA (D. Nev., March 19, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated arising from Defendant's role in enabling and sustaining a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of hundreds of millions of dollars. According to the complaint, the Defendant enables a massive cryptocurrency fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Goliath Ventures LLC. The scheme continued until the Department of Justice arrested the Chief Executive Officer of Goliath, Christopher Delgado, on February 24, 2026. Specifically, the suit concerns a distinct cohort of investors whose funds were transmitted to, received by, processed through, or otherwise routed via specific BOA accounts used by Goliath Ventures to solicit, receive, commingle, and deploy investor capital. The transmission of investor funds through these BOA accounts constituted a critical operational channel of the Goliath scheme and enabled the continued solicitation of new investors and the deepening of losses suffered by existing investors, including Plaintiff, says the suit. At the center of the scheme was a BOA business account ending in 9136, which functioned as the central hub for investor funds. From May 2025 through September 2025 alone, approximately $75 million was deposited into the BOA Account. During that same period, tens of millions of dollars were rapidly transferred out, including approximately $42 million to cryptocurrency exchange accounts and approximately $11 million to investors as purported "returns," which were in fact funded by other investors' deposits, the suit contends. Bank of America, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment planning, and corporate finance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret A. McLetchie, Esq. Leo S. Wolpert, Esq. MCLETCHIE LAW 602 South Tenth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Facsimile: (702) 425-8220 E-mail: maggie@nvlitigation.com leo@nvlitigation.com efile@nvlitigation.com - and - Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Gabriel E. Morales Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 361-3633 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 - and - Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. Brian Pastor, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 912-3000 Facsimile: (786) 485-1510 E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com service@sonnlaw.com - and - Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. ADAM A. SCHWARTZBAUM, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 725-1245 E-mail: adam@schwartzbaum.com admin@schwartzbaum.com - and - T. Liam Murphy, Esq. MURPHY'S LAW: THE CRYPTO LAW FIRM 353 Lexington Avenue 4th Floor, Suite 400 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (913) 575-0540 E-mail: liam@murphyslawcrypto.com BENELUX CORP: Appeals Class Certification & Summary Judgment Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENELUX CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Maggie Montes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Benelux Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00276, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On July 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Sept. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed their respective motions for partial summary judgment. On Mar. 18, 2026, Judge Robert Pitman entered an Order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion for partial summary judgment. The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. The appellate case is captioned as Montes v. Benelux, Case No. 26-90009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents MAGGIE MONTES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ryan Odell Estes, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2901 Bee Cave Road Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 814-7348 Defendants-Petitioners BENELUX CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: William King, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON, LLP 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-3840 BEST OF HARLEM GRADE: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ------------------------------------------------------------------- Graciela Doncouse, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. BEST OF HARLEM GRADE LLC d/b/a GOTHAM CHELSEA, EAST VALLEY 10TH AVENUE LLC, and 146-150 TENTH AVENUE REALTY LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03418 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2026), is brought seeking equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal damages; along with attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") due to the Defendants' discrimination on their Premises. The Defendants' Premises is a commercial space as defined by the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL because, inter alia, a portion of the building and structure thereof used or intended to be used as a business, office, and commerce. On August 16, 2025, and on other occasions, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises, which operates as a well-known, high end dispensary that is the first cannabis concept store that is mission driven by art, design, fashion and culture. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public accommodations within Defendants' Premises. The Defendants denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the services or accommodations offered within Defendants' Premises because of his disability has caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact. The Plaintiff intends on immediately returning to Defendants' Premises once the barriers to access are removed and Defendants' Premises are ADA compliant. The Defendants' failure to comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, et seq. impedes upon the rights of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated disabled individuals, to travel free of discrimination and independently access Defendants' Premises, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. East Valley is a foreign limited liability company authorized to conduct business within the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H New York, NY 1002 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com BLACKWATER MANAGEMENT: Bailey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Jordon Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLACKWATER MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01583-EA (D. Md., April 23, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other wages unlawfully withheld by Defendant, liquidated damages in in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). The Defendant violates the FLSA through unlawful timekeeping and payroll practices for hourly-paid employees, including: failing to pay employees for compensable pre-shift work, including work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek; automatically deducting time from employees' pay each day based on meal breaks, despite employees not receiving bona fide meal breaks or having to perform work during those periods, resulting in nonpayment for hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek; and paying some hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at employees' straight-time hourly rates, without paying the required overtime premium compensation for those hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery driver from February 2025 through April 2025. The Defendant is a business entity that operates delivery and logistics services in Maryland, including in Edgewood, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rinderman, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5279 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Briefing Schedule Entered in Davis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIS et al v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-19650-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Andre M. Espinosa entered an order granting the Plaintiff's proposed briefing schedule as follows: The Plaintiffs will file motion: June 5, 2026 BMW NA will file opposition: July 10, 2026 The Plaintiffs will file reply: July 24, 2026 On Nov. 24, 2025, the Court issued Opinion and Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in which the Court advised that "if Plaintiff seek to certify classes for claims under Georgia or Kentucky law, and/or "fire" subclasses under the same, they may do so on a schedule to be set by the United States Magistrate Judge." BMW manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells first-class automobile. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sVLINf at no extra charge.[CC] BOLTON US: Deinnocentes Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bolton US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00493 (N.D. Ind., April 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://wildplanetfoods.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Deinnocentes' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Deinnocentes has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On March 30, 2026, Deinnocentes was searching online for canned seafood options that are convenient, easy to store, and maintain strong nutritional value. During her search, she discovered the Defendant's Website, Wildplanetfoods.com, which offers a variety of canned and ready-to-eat seafood products, including tuna, salmon, sardines, mackerel, and other protein options. Before making an order, Deinnocentes analyzed customer reviews highlighting the quality, freshness, and responsible sourcing of the products. Encouraged by this information, she explored the Website with the intent to purchase canned tuna. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader, Deinnocentes encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Deinnocentes. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Deinnocentes and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Deinnocentes seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Mary Ann Deinnocentes is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Bolton US, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a diverse selection of sustainably sourced seafood products, including wild tuna, sardines, salmon, mackerel, yellowtail, and anchovies, as well as ready‑to‑eat meals and other canned chicken and beef items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law BOSTONIAN TOWING SERVICE: Duff Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bostonian Towing Service, Inc. The case is styled as Marisa Duff, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. Bostonian Towing Service, Inc., Case No. 2681CV01099 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., April 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases." Bostonian Towing Service, Inc. -- https://bostoniantowing.com/ -- specializes in light and medium duty towing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Francis Xavier Yasi, Jr., Esq. YASI AND YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (978)741-0400 BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Removes Brewer Suit to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JACK BREWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 26STCV07036) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 10, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03831. The case is assigned to John A Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate Alka Sagar. Brinderson Constructors Inc. provides clients a wide variety of services including fabrication, safety and more. Brinderson provides routine maintenance services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Howard M. Knee, Esq. Nicole N. Wentworth, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 Email: howard.knee@blankrome.com nicole.wentworth@blankrome.com BROOMFIELD: Class Certification in Nickerson Suit Deferred ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nickerson v. Broomfield et al (RE CIM-SQ TRANSFER CASES), Case No. 5:20-cv-06326-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Any stipulation or motion practice regarding class certification in this matter is deferred until after a ruling on the parties' anticipated Phase I motions for summary judgment unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 2. The parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding a stipulation or motion practice as to class certification within 14 days following a Phase I summary judgment ruling, including the need for any additional discovery related to class certification. 3. The Defendants will not argue that any motion for class certification is untimely unless the Court imposes a new applicable deadline and Plaintiff fails to meet that deadline. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=75V6Hy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Kelly, Esq. Nancy Hersh, Esq. HERSH & HERSH 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 608 San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 441-5544 E-mail: ckelly@hershlaw.com nhersh@hershlaw.com - and - Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON 3959 N. Buffalo Road, No. 29 Orchard Park, NY 14127 Telephone: (716) 242-1234 E-mail: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com - and - Tyler R. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TYLER SMITH Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (415) 844-0680 E-mail: smithtyler42@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey T. Fisher, Esq. Rob Bonta, Esq. Robert W. Henkels, Esq. Juliet M. Lompa, Esq. Andrea R. Sloan, Esq. Zachary A. Glantz, Esq. Gurpreet Sandhu, Esq. Robert W. Henkels, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 510-3365 Facsimile: (415) 703-5843 C9 ALLIANCE INC: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C9 Alliance, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Gerald Lamont Davis, Jr., and all other similarly situated v. C9 ALLIANCE, INC., Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV010253 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Cloud 9, legally known as C9 Alliance, Inc., holds an Adult-Use and Medicinal Retailer license located in Sacramento County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Student Class in Fisk Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL CASTRO, GRETA VISS, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robinson entered an order as follows: 1. The Court finds the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) are satisfied and certifies, for the purposes of settlement only, the following classes: Class 1: "All female students who participate in intercollegiate varsity athletics through the termination of the Settlement Agreement or, since Feb. 7, 2022, participated in intercollegiate varsity athletics at San Diego State University." Class 2: "All female students who participated in intercollegiate varsity athletics at San Diego State University from the 2018–2019 academic year through the 2024–2025 academic year and did not receive all of the athletic financial aid they could have received." 2. The Court grants the joint motion for final approval and finally approves the Settlement Agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) as fair, reasonable, and adequate. 3. The Courts orders SDSU to pay the negotiated amount of $300,000 in damages for Class 2 within 30 days of the date of this Order. 4. The Court confirms its finding that the proposed Plan of Allocation for Class 2 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and appoints CPT Group to serve as the Disbursement Administrator. The Court also approves CPT Group's fees, estimated to be $9,750.00, to be paid by Class Counsel. 5. The Court grants the motion for Attorneys' fees and orders SDSU to pay the negotiated amount of $1,300,000 for the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any attorneys' fees and/or cost liens from former Plaintiffs' firms will be the responsibility of class counsel Arthur Bryant and not SDSU. The Court conditionally certified the injunctive relief and financial aid classes for the purposes of settlement. No new facts have been introduced that would change this analysis. Accordingly, the Court finds the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ubyPX1 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL PROVISIONS: Camacho Seeks Non-Exempt Workers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ CELSO CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees, RAFAEL FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees; Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL PROVISIONS LAX LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26NWCV01138 (Cal. Super., March 30, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' (i) failure to provide employment records; (ii) failure to pay overtime and double time; (iii) failure to provide rest and meal periods; (iv) failure to pay minimum wages; (v) failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; (vi) failure to pay reporting time wages; (vii) failure to pay split shift wages; (viii) failure to pay all wages earned on time; and (ix) failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation. Representative Plaintiff Camacho was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee with the job title of Receiving and Restocking staff from February 19, 2023 until October 31, 2025. Capital Provisions Lax LLC is a trucking carrier based in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com CARDONE CAPITAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Pino Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARDONE CAPITAL, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Christine Pino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cardone Capital, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-08499-JFW-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who purchased interests in Cardone Equity Fund V, LLC and Cardone Equity Fund VI, LLC, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. On Dec. 11, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge John F. Walter granted on Mar. 27, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Class is defined as: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired interests in Cardone Equity Fund V and Cardone Equity Fund VI pursuant to their public offerings. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their directors, officers, employees, and agents. The Court further appoints Ms. Pino as Class Representative and Susman Godfrey LLP as Class Counsel. The appellate case is captioned as Cardone Capital, LLC, et al. v. Christine Pino, Case No. 26-2252, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTINE PINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Raj Mathur, Esq. Morgan A.L. McCollum, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP One Manhattan West 395 9th Avenue, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Email: rmathur@susmangodfrey.com mmccollum@susmangodfrey.com Defendants-Petitioners CARDONE CAPITAL, LLC, et al. are represented by: Brandon R. Keel, Esq. Cheri Grosvenor, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 - and - Joseph N. Akrotirianakis, Esq. Lisa R. Bugni, Esq. Matt V.H. Noller, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4313 Email: jakro@kslaw.com CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Brookner Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation. The case is styled as Clinton Brookner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-22855-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Carnival Corporation & PLC -- https://www.carnivalcorp.com/ -- is an Anglo-American cruise line operator that owns more than 90 vessels across eight brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Anthony Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Cole Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation. The case is styled as Ashley Cole, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-22844-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Carnival Corporation & PLC -- https://www.carnivalcorp.com/ -- is an Anglo-American cruise line operator that owns more than 90 vessels across eight brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Pottle Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation. The case is styled as Zachary Pottle, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-22801-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Carnival Corporation & PLC -- https://www.carnivalcorp.com/ -- is an Anglo-American cruise line operator that owns more than 90 vessels across eight brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Vasquez Files Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation. The case is styled as Yvonne Vasquez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-22866-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Carnival Corporation & PLC -- https://www.carnivalcorp.com/ -- is an Anglo-American cruise line operator that owns more than 90 vessels across eight brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CENTRAL RESEARCH: Discloses Info to Third Parties, Melenudo Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MADISON MELENUDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL RESEARCH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03340 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all CRI account holders whose private and confidential information were disclosed by the Defendant to Google LLC without consent, in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. To create and access their private financial accounts on the Defendant's website, Plaintiff and other users must share personally identifying information, including their phone number and email address. When consumers provide this information and navigate their private financial accounts, they expect that their confidential information and activity will be protected and not disclosed to unknown third parties. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and Defendant's legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, the Defendant discloses information related to consumers' student loan debts to Google, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and California Class members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, loss of time and opportunity costs, lost benefit of the bargain and pre judgment interest and costs. Central Research, Inc. provides financial services to consumers through the website cri.studentaid.gov it maintains, where CRI account holders can manage their student loans and select payment plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com CENTURION HEALTH: Montgomery Bid to Certify Class Nixed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY MONTGOMERY, v. FRANK STRADA, DR. JOHN RICHESON, and CENTURION HEALTH CARE OF TENNESSEE, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00080-CEA-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Charles Atchley, Jr. entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class and for appointment of counsel and motion for injunctive relief are denied; 2. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 3. The Plaintiff is assessed the civil filing fee of $350.00; 4. The custodian of the Plaintiff's inmate trust account is directed to submit the filing fee to the Clerk; 5. Even with liberal construction, the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; and 7. The Court certifies that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions violate the ACA's "mandate to care for all qualified citizens[,]" because he was a ward of the State that was denied constitutionally adequate dental care. The Plaintiff intends to represent a class consisting of: "all TDOC inmates who “seek dental healthcare services to save teeth." The Plaintiff was detained in the Davidson County Jail without dental services for approximately eight years. He was sentenced on or about Jan. 8, 2024. Centurion provides individual and group behavioral health services to judicially-involved individuals. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tw9YMh at no extra charge.[CC] CETERA FINANCIAL: Collier Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER COLLIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CETERA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03376-SPG-KES (C.D. Cal., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive the personal identifying information of Plaintiff and Class Members that was compromised in a cyber incident. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the suit. Cetera Financial Group, Inc. is an independent financial services provider and wealth management network in the United States, supporting over 11,000 financial advisors and managing over $640 billion in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com CETERA FINANCIAL: Jenkins Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER JENKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CETERA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04092 (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members that was compromised in a data breach involving unauthorized access to an employee email account. The Defendant collected and maintained certain PII of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members as a condition of receiving services from or accepting employment with Defendant. The PII compromised in the data breach was targeted and accessed by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves between July 7, 2025, and August 21, 2025. The Defendant did not begin notifying affected individuals until March 25, 2026 -- approximately eight months after the unauthorized access began and nearly five months after Defendant discovered the PII was compromised, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft and will incur out-of-pocket costs for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, and other protective measures, the suit contends. Cetera Financial Group, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers broker-dealer services, technology solutions, and advisory programs to independent financial professionals and financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 E-mail: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com CHEMOURS CO: Bid to Exclude Albright's Testimony Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, LOWERCAPEFEARWATER&SEWER AUTHORITY, and TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 7:17-cv-00195-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Dever III entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to exclude Albright's report and testimony. As the court previewed at the Jan. 23, 2026, hearing, the court will permit the parties to file supplemental briefing concerning their cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties' opening briefs are due May 15, 2026, and responses are due May 29, 2026. Opening briefs are limited to 20 pages, and response briefs are limited to 10 pages. No replies are permitted. Albright's opinions about foreseeability and identification are inadmissible. The Plaintiffs fail to show by a preponderance that it was technologically feasible to do what Albright says defendants should have done. Absent a sufficient methodology or factual basis to evaluate Albright's opinions, they do not satisfy Rule 702 's threshold requirements. Accordingly, the court grants defendants' motion to exclude Albright's opinions about the foreseeability of contamination and the identification of chemicals. The Plaintiffs allege that defendants discharged toxic chemicals from the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina, into the Cape Fear River and surrounding air, soil, and groundwater. Chemours is an American chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V8bUO1 at no extra charge.[CC] CIGNA HEALTH: Stipulated Discovery Plan Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Irena Stanic Rasin, et al., v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00407-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Albregts entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' stipulated discovery plan. Accordingly, the Court denies the stipulation in part only to the extent that the parties propose deadlines contingent on the Courts ruling on class certification. The Court will instead set the concrete deadlines that the parties propose and the parties may move to extend those deadlines if necessary. The Court grants the stipulation in all other respects. The following deadlines shall govern discovery: Amend pleadings/add parties: Oct. 21, 2026 Motion for class certification: Jan. 21, 2027 Expert disclosures: Aug. 3, 2027 Rebuttal expert disclosures: Sept. 15, 2027 Discovery cutoff: Oct. 15, 2027 Dispositive motions: Nov. 15, 2027 Joint pretrial order: Dec. 15, 20271 Cigna offers life and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3eNeuJ at no extra charge.[CC] CLOUDINARY INC: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Data Security Failures --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLOUDINARY, INC. and FIVERR INC. d/b/a FIVERR, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-03381 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about their consumers including Plaintiff. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII, says the suit. As a direct and traceable result of Defendants' negligence and/or negligent supervision, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered or will suffer damages, including monetary damages, increased risk of future harm, embarrassment, humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Gonzalez was a freelancer on Defendant Fiverr's platform and purchased services through the platform approximately two to three years ago, around 2023-2024. Cloudinary, Inc. is a cloud-based media platform that designs and develops software solutions. Fiverr Inc. is an online freelance marketplace with corporate offices in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com CLUB MED SALES: Erwin Email Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MELISSA ERWIN, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLUB MED SALES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-02997-31, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Snohomish County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 24, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01397 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's unlawful practice of sending emails with false or misleading subject lines. Club Med Sales, Inc. operates a resort in Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Quincy Rush, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com quincyrush@dwt.com COMPASS GROUP: Mehlberg Bid to Unseal Class Cert. Brief OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mehlberg, et al., v. Compass Group USA, Inc. Case No. 2:24-cv-04179 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct. 09, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to unseal and unredact class certification brief and supporting exhibits. The Defendant Compass has not moved to permanently seal or redact these materials. Instead, it has filed a Response wherein it agreed that they should be made publicly available. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.) The Defendant is a provider of food and support services.[CC] COMPASS GROUP: Seeks Reconsideration of April 9 Order ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD L. MEHLBERG, and ANGELA R. DEIBEL, individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04179-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to reconsider its April 9, 2026 Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In certifying the four proposed classes, the Class Order considered the applicable limitations periods and accrual dates for the Plaintiffs' various claims. However, in doing so, it committed material errors of law and violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by issuing rulings on the merits that go beyond what was needed to decide the certification issues before the Court. The Defendant is a provider of food and support services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2CFWgZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Rene E. Thorne, Esq. Lindsey H. Chopin, Esq. Phillip C. Thompson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 208-1755 E-mail: René.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com Lindsey.Chopin@jacksonlewis.com Phillip.Thompson@jacksonlewis.com COMPASS OF MIAMI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Colmenares Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS COLMENARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPASS OF MIAMI SERVICES, INC.; and MICHAEL ALEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22485-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 10, 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 Colmenares was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance employee. Compass of Miami Services, Inc. is a service provider, providing janitorial, streetsweeping, pressure washing, construction cleaning, landscaping and maintenance services to commercial and corporate clients in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Continues to Defend Meza Stockholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Brands, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Feb. 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Meza stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. On February 18, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York captioned Meza v. Constellation Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-6107 (W.D.N.Y.). The complaint names as defendants the Company, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from allegedly materially false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning, among other things, the Company's strategies intended to improve the performance of our Wine and Spirits business. On July 17, 2025, an amended complaint was filed in the Meza litigation. The amended complaint asserts the same causes of action against the same defendants, but alleges materially false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning, among other things, the prospects of our beer business. The amended complaint does not allege misstatements or omissions regarding its wine and spirits business. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, alleged damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and costs. On September 17, 2025, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of December 12, 2025 and remains pending. Constellation Brands, Inc. is a leading international producer and marketer of beer, wine and spirits, with a portfolio of popular imported and craft beer brands and premium wine and spirits labels. The company sells its products primarily in the United States, Mexico, New Zealand and Canada through a variety of wholesale and retail channels. COOKEVILLE REGIONAL: Evans Sues Over Data Security Failure ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COOKEVILLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00029 (M.D. Tenn., April 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure. On or about April 14, 2026, the Defendant reported that it experienced a cybersecurity incident whereby an unauthorized third party accessed Defendant's computer network and viewed and/or acquired certain files between July 11, 2025, and July 14, 2025. The Defendant claims that it completed its investigation on or about March 16, 2026. Defendant's investigation determined that the personal information compromised and accessed by unauthorized third parties in the data breach include names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information, medical treatment information, medical record numbers, and/or health insurance policy information of approximately 337,917 individuals. Despite learning of the data breach as early as July 14, 2025, the Defendant did not publicly announce the data breach until approximately nine months later, in or around April 2026, and did not begin sending out data breach notification letters to affected individuals until around that time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress from Defendant's wrongful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Headquartered in Cookeville, TN, Cookeville Regional Medical Center provides medical services, including emergency care, inpatient and outpatient treatment, surgical services, diagnostic imaging, cardiovascular care, oncology, and other specialty services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (423) 737-3265 E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com CORPORACION ELECTRICA: Seeks More Time to File Opposition --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mazzaccone v. Corporacion Electrica Nacional S.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-02681-JHR-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a further extension of the deadline for the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, along with a corresponding extension of the reply deadline for the Plaintiff. The Defendant submits that these further extensions are warranted because the Second Circuit is still considering the Defendant's petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) seeking review of a class certification decision in a similar case brought by the same proposed lead plaintiff and counsel, Mazzaccone v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24‑cv‑06168‑DLC (S.D.N.Y.) Accordingly, the Defendant requests that the Court further extend the deadline for the Defendant's opposition to May 29, 2026, and the deadline for the Plaintiff's reply to June 29, 2026. Should the Second Circuit not act on the Rule 23(f) petition in the near term, the parties and the Court can reassess whether any further extension is warranted. The Defendant is the state-owned electricity operator in Venezuela. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cYqlhd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Marisa F. Antonelli, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 E-mail: mantonelli@velaw.com ccardozo@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com COTY INC: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUVEGA SRINIVASAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COTY INC., SUE NABI, and LAURENT MERCIER, Case No. 1:26-cv-02343-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Abrams entered an order referring case to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for the following purposes: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Motion(s) for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel, if any. Motion(s) for class certification, if any. Coty is a multinational beauty company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7mQqsn at no extra charge.[CC] CREATE WELLNESS: Connolly Sues Over Falsely Advertised Gummies -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CONNOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREATE WELLNESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-03324 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York's General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment arising from falsely advertising its "Create Creatine Monohydrate Gummies" as containing 4.5 grams per serving of creatine. According to the complaint, the Defendant's products are bite-sized workout supplements consumers take like gummy vitamins. The gummies are marketed as containing creatine, a supplement popular with gym-goers to help build muscle in their workouts. However, independent laboratory testing of one of Plaintiff's products he purchased from Defendant showed that the Products contain only about 4.1 grams of creatine per serving, or approximately 10% less than what is claimed on the label. This finding comports with an independent third-party organization, Food Now, that tested Defendant's 1,500 milligram, or 1.5-gram creatine gummies back in 2024. That organization found that Defendant's products contained only about 80% of what was represented on the labels, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's creatine gummies on multiple occasions via his subscription. He first subscribed to Defendant's recurring order program in January 2025 from his home where orders were sent. Create Wellness LLC is a New York-based creatine-focused wellness company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com - and - Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: cdonovan@bursor.com CURIO EMPLOYER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAUDELAIRE MORANCY, LARRY MARTINEZ, LIVIU VIOREL IONITA, MOHAMMED LAKHSASSI, DORREL MAURICE AARONS, and JAMES BEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CURIO EMPLOYER LLC d/b/a STARWOOD, HILTON EMPLOYER INC., PABLO GAMBOA, individually, and ROBERTO BUCCIERO, individually, Case No. 0:25-cv-62359-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' corrected motion for conditional certification and facilitation of Court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and the Plaintiffs' corrected motion to certify class pursuant to Rule 23 through and including May 12, 2026. Given the breadth of the issues raised in the Plaintiff's corrected motions for certification, as well as undersigned counsel's pre-existing caseload, the Defendants require additional time to evaluate and prepare appropriate responses. On March 16, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their corrected motion for conditional certification and facilitation of Court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and their corrected motion to certify class pursuant to Rule 23. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NvE3v3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER, GEORGES PIERRE, & HOOGERWOERD PLLC 2745 Ponce de Leon Blvd Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 E-mail: pmh@rgph.law The Defendants are represented by: Paul F. Penichet, Esq. Stepanka Rubio Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 E-mail: paul.penichet@jacksonlewis.com stepanka.rubio@jacksonlewis.com D.H. PACE: Underpays Company Employees, Friend Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ CORY FRIEND On behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. D.H. PACE COMPANY, INC., D/B/A OVERHEAD DOOR, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02203-HLT-GEB (D. Kan., April 15, 2026 is a class and collective action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Wage-Related Class Claims. The complaint relates that the Defendant has had a policy and practice of failing and refusing to compensate its laborers overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and improperly deducting monies from employees' pay. The Plaintiff and all Putative Plaintiffs/Class Members were subject to Defendant's policies and practices of failing and refusing to compensate employees their regular or statutorily required rate of pay for all hours worked. Instead, Plaintiffs were paid on varied rates, including a piece rate, or for the hours that any job was billed, rather than the hours worked. The Defendant's pay practices and policies are in direct violation of the FLSA and Wage-Related Class Claims, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks declaratory relief; overtime premiums for all overtime work required, suffered, or permitted by Defendant; compensation for wages wrongfully withheld or deducted; liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law; and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action. Plaintiff Cory Friend was employed as a laborer for Defendant and performed work for Defendant in Kansas and Missouri. Defendant DH Pace Company, Inc. sells commercial products and services under the DH Pace brand name in select markets. Defendant uses a signature "red ribbon" for branding purposes with all locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 3609 SW Pryor Rd., Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com DEMPSEY OIL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chen Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- KOWEI CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEMPSEY OIL, INC. D/B/A DEMPSEY ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11679 (D. Mass., April 10, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Dempsey Oil Inc. operates as a full service company. The Company provides home heating oil, heating service, air conditioning service, and refrigeration service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: omer@edelsberglaw.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Philipps Balks at Deceptive Product Ads -------------------------------------------------------- PAULA J. PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTSPLY SIRONA INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00304 (W.D.N.C., April 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's deceptive marketing of Byte Aligner Systems and Impression Kits in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other customers contracted to purchase products from Defendant Dentsply's wholly owned subsidiary Straight Smile, LLC, d/b/a Byte. And Byte also marketed the products; however, Defendant Dentsply itself promoted the products as safe and effective in fixing crooked teeth and malformed smiles, when in truth the products were ineffective and dangerous. This is evidenced by thousands of reported adverse events and Byte's abrupt cessation of sales in the fall 2024, notes the complaint. Defendant Dentsply has independent statutory liability for its conduct in furthering this false and deceptive business practice to the detriment of consumers, adds the complaint. Dentsply Sirona Inc. is an American dental equipment manufacturer and dental consumables producer that markets its products in over 120 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Katharine W. Batchelor, Esq. LEE SEGUI, PLLC 421 N. Harrington St., Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com kbatchelor@leesegui.com - and - Jordan A. Dresnick, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JORDAN A. DRESNICK 901 Brickell Key Blvd., Suite 2901 Miami, FL 33146 Telephone: (786) 220-8785 E-mail: jordandresnick@gmail.com - and - Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq. Manuel A. "Alex" Arteaga-Gomez, Esq. Ryan J. Yaffa, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 442-8666 Facsimile: (305) 285-1668 E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com aag@grossmanroth.com rjy@grossmanroth.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Walker's Class Allegations Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WALKER, PEARL IRENE WISE, and TAMI HUNTER-NEAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation; dba MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 1:23-cv-00349-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Singer entered an order for dismissal of Plaintiff Michele Walker's individual class allegations and representative PAGA claims. 1. Walker's individual proposed class allegations and Representative PAGA Claims are dismissed without prejudice (she shall no longer be a proposed class representative or a representative for the PAGA claims); 2. Walker will submit a withdrawal of her letter, Case No. LWDA-CM 885506-22 to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") by April 30, 2026; 3. Walker may proceed only as a putative class member and an alleged aggrieved employee; 4. The remaining proposed class representatives and/or private attorney generals will not use or rely on any declarations from Walker in seeking class certification or otherwise; 5. Each party is responsible for their own costs and attorneys’ fees incurred to date; and 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this named Plaintiff Michele Walker only from the docket (while preserving whatever status she might have as a putative class member). Dignity is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AkDHuy at no extra charge.[CC] DOREL JUVENILE GROUP: Gonzales Sues over Fictitious Regular Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC. a Massachusetts corporation, d/b/a WWW.SAFETYIST.COM, Case No. 26STCV13483 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 27, 2026), is brought against the Defendants actions of advertising fictitious regular prices which are illegal under California law. On February 27, 2026, Plaintiff purchased "Disney Baby Jive 2-in-1 Convertible Car Seat" in the "Peeking Minnie" print (the "Product") from Defendant for the "discounted" price of $99.00, which Defendant compared to a reference "strike-through" of S 129.99. The Defendant advertises fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through its website at www.safety1st.com. This practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California law. The Plaintiff purchased the product based upon the reasonable belief, due to Defendant's misleading advertising, that the price plaintiff paid reflected a genuine, limited-time discount from the product's ordinary price. It did not. The purported "reference price" identified in the preceding paragraph was not the prevailing market price within the 90 days prior to the date of access, and therefore did not constitute a bona fide former price from which any legitimate discount was being offered, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the product from the Defednant. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com DTO ALTERATIONS: Ayala Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE E. VALLADARES AYALA, MARCELINO NIETO JIMENEZ, LUCIO NIETO, CARLOS ACEVEDO BALTAZAR, and CARITINO V. TORRES ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DTO ALTERATIONS LLC, WILD GEESE ALTERATIONS LLC, CELTIC 123 INC., and CELTIC DEMOLITION, INC., and DANNY M. DEJESUS, ORIE CRAIG DALY, and KIERAN F. SLEVIN, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03127 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws. The complaint relates that the Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and the Collective Class to work more than 40 hours per week without appropriate overtime compensation. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent. The Defendants' violations of the FLSA have been willful and intentional. Defendants have not made a good effort to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") with respect to compensating the Plaintiffs. Defendants willfully violated the rights of Plaintiffs by failing to pay their wages owed on a weekly basis in which their wages were earned, in violation of New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), says the suit. As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages. Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs primarily performed work for the Defendants at job sites throughout New York for which Plaintiffs alleged they were not properly compensated, forming the basis of the instant lawsuit. The Defendants were Plaintiffs' employers within the meaning and the intent of the FLSA and the NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718-263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 EB5 AFFILIATE: Saurabh Alleges Fraud, Fiduciary Duties Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- FNU KAUSHIK SAURABH; CAROLINA FRANCO DE POPPE; SASIKIRAN DADI; and SRI KRISHNA CHAITANYA ANNE, individually and as proposed class representatives on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EB5 AFFILIATE NETWORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01228 (D.P.R., April 16, 2026) seek class-wide relief, including rescission of contracts made and performed in violation of federal securities laws, restitution and disgorgement of Defendant's compensatory damages for securities fraud and related claims, statutory remedies, equitable accounting and constructive trust relief, and all further remedies at law and in equity. This securities-fraud, unlawful broker-dealer, fiduciary-duty, and contract action arises from EB5 Affiliate Network, LLC's (EB5AN) solicitation, placement, and administration of direct EB-5 investments in Higher Ground Education's Montessori school funds, including HGE FIC I LLC, HGE FIC L LLC, HGE FIC M LLC, and HGE FIC N LLC (collectively, the HGE Funds), which EB5AN marketed and processed during the July 2021–March 2022 lapse of the federal EB-5 Regional Center program. EB5AN, operating from and through Puerto Rico for these offerings, promoted the HGE Funds as $500,000 Targeted Employment Area direct EB-5 opportunities that would comfortably exceed the ten-job requirement per investor, while simultaneously positioning itself as Special Manager to administer immigration deliverables and to handle investor reservations, admissions, escrow coordination, and communications. The Plaintiffs and other investors relied on EB5AN's written representations, business plans, TEA designations, and immigration-facing materials that projected approximately 145 full time direct jobs for one cohort -- about 13.2 jobs per investor by Year 4 -- and represented that EB5AN would administer and support I-526 and I-829 filings, while controlling intake and escrow processes using a San Juan, Puerto Rico address. The complaint alleges that EB5AN failed to conduct and failed to disclose the absence of basic diligence into HE's viability, bridge-financing dependency, and site-level fragility that materially undermined the feasibility of creating and sustaining direct jobs through I-829 adjudications, and it omitted material countervailing facts necessary to make its statements not misleading. EB5AN also acted as an unregistered broker-dealer by soliciting, advising on, and effecting purchases of securities for transaction-based compensation while unregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and not a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. When HGE and affiliates entered Chapter 11 in 2025 following foreclosures and school closures that eliminated required direct jobs, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated investors lost both their capital and the immigration benefits EB5AN promised would be achievable under the direct-jobs regime, alleges the suit. EB5 Affiliate Network, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that marketed, processed, and administered the HGE Fund offerings from and through Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Esq. Kaitlin Harris, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT V. CORNISH, JR., PC 680 South Cache Street, Suite 100 P.O. Box 12200 Jackson, WY 83001 Telephone: (307) 264-0535 Facsimile: (571) 290-6052 E-mail: rcornish@rcornishlaw.com kharris@rcornishlaw.com - and - Maria Dolores Trelles Hernandez, Esq. Maria Elena Martinez, Esq. PIETRANTONI MENDEZ & ALVAREZ LLC Popular Center, 19th Floor 208 Ponce de Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787) 274-1212 Facsimile: (787) 274-1470 E-mail: mtrelles@pmalaw.com mmartinez@pmalaw.com ELAN INT'L: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Deinnocentes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELAN INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00495 (N.D. Ind., April 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://shopelan.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Deinnocentes's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Deinnocentes has made an attempt to complete a purchase on The Website. On March 30, 2026, Deinnocentes was searching for an online clothing store specializing in women's boho style clothing. During her search, she discovered Defendant's website, Shopelan.com, a brand known for offering a range of stylish, on-trend clothing and apparel for women. To learn more, Deinnocentes reviewed customer feedback, which praised the brand for its trendy styles and high-quality, comfortable clothing. Encouraged by these positive reviews, Deinnocentes decided to explore the Website with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader software, Deinnocentes encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to complete the purchase. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Deinnocentes. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Deinnocentes and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations. Deinnocentes seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant ELAN INTERNATIONAL INC. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of women's bohemian-inspired apparel, including dresses, tops, sweaters, bottoms, jackets, jumpsuits, rompers, sets, crochet cover-ups. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone; (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law ELECOM USA: Douglass Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ELECOM USA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01788-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order finally approving the class action settlement agreement and certifying the Settlement Class. In support, the Plaintiff submits the accompanying brief in support of the Plaintiff's motion for certification of the settlement class and final approval of the class action settlement agreement. The Plaintiff asks that the Court find the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and enter the attached proposed order. Defendant does not oppose the relief sought herein. The Defendant is a Japanese electronics company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wnfBSW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Tucker, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Helen Chandler Steiger, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com ELLAFI FEDERAL: Fraulino Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fraulino v. ELLAFI Federal Credit Union, Case No. 3:26-cv-00030 (D. Conn., Filed Jan. 7, 2026), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order dismissing case without prejudice. The Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The action is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff so stated that intention in his notice. Furthermore, no pending motions remain, and class notice of Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal is not required because a motion for class certification was not filed and there has been no class certification. The nature of suit torts -- personal property - other personal property damage. Ellafi provides a variety of banking services.[CC] EMERITUS CORP: Case Management Conference in Adame Due August 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ADAME, v. EMERITUS CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00518-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order continuing the Case Management Conference to Aug. 11, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. by Zoom videoconference. The Joint Statement shall be filed by Aug. 4, 2026. Addressing other issues raised in the Joint Report, discovery may proceed. The Court will not bifurcate class and merits discovery. The motion for class certification shall be filed by May 5, 2027. In the Joint Statement on Aug. 4, 2026, the parties shall state their proposal regarding deadlines for the opposition and reply briefs to that motion, and their agreement to pursue either private medication or mediation through the Court's ADR unit, and a date for mediation prior to Feb. 26, 2027. If there is a need now to discuss any additional case-related issues, the parties shall contact Jean Davis, my Courtroom Deputy, to request to appear at a CMC on May 12 or 19, 2026. Emeritus was an operator of senior living communities. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ANfCS3 at no extra charge.[CC] EMM LOANS: Class Settlement in Lehrbach Suit Gets Prelim Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA LEHRBACH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,  v. EMM LOANS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02040-KMW-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Pascal entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was implicated in the Incident discovered by EMM in February 2024, including all individuals who received notice of the Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) the judges presiding over this Litigation, and members of their direct families; and (2) the Defendant, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest. 2. The Court finds that Plaintiff Linda Lehrbach will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, the Court finds Cassandra P. Miller of Strauss Borrelli PLLC will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel. 3. A final approval hearing shall be held on Aug. 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Emm Loans is a licensed mortgage lender. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=15nNyF at no extra charge.[CC] ENOVIX CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in Securities Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court finds that the defendants have rebutted the Basic presumption of reliance by showing through a preponderance of the evidence that the Aug. 10, 2021, statement had no price impact. "And without the presumption of reliance, a Rule 10b–5 suit cannot proceed as a class action: Each plaintiff would have to prove reliance individually, so common issues would not 'predominate' over individual ones, as required by Rule 23(b)(3)." On March 13, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of investors "consisting of all persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded common stock of Enovix between Aug. 11, 2021, and Oct. 2, 2023, and were damaged thereby." The Defendant designs, develops, and manufactures lithium-ion battery cells in the United States and internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pBblxM at no extra charge.[CC] EQUIFAX INFO: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02609 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting in part and denying in part the "Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines to Respond, to Expand the Page Limitations, and for Leave to File Reply Briefs." The motion is granted to the extent it seeks a 9-day extension of time to file responses to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the Daubert motions as to Michael Turner, Alexander King, and Evan Hendricks . The motion is also granted to the extent that it requests Plaintiff be allowed to file a 10-page reply brief in support of his class certification motion, to be filed within 14 days after the filing of Equifax's opposition to class certification. The motion is otherwise denied. The nature of suit states Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax provides credit reporting, monitoring, and identity theft protection services.[CC] ERMINIA RESTAURANT: David Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Buddy David, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ERMINIA RESTAURANT CORP., d/b/a LATTANZI CUCINA ITALIANA, and ALESSANDRO LATTANZI, Case No. 1:26-cv-03320 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages. The Defendants frequently failed to pay employees on their scheduled pay day. When Defendants paid employees late, they failed to timely pay minimum wage and overtime compensation due under the FLSA. Because Plaintiff and the Class Members were manual workers, under the NYLL Defendants were required to pay them weekly and not more than seven days after the end of the workweek. Defendants violated this provision of the NYLL every time they paid Class Members later than seven days after the end of the workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server at Lattanzi from 2022 to 2026. Erminia Restaurant Corp. is a New York corporation that owns and operates Lattanzi Cucina Italiana in Manhattan, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN 260 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-983-8999 Fax: 646-693-2289 - and - D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise A. Schulman, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 EVOLVE BANK: Class Cert Bid in Margul Due March 17, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLGA MARGUL, KELLI JO CLAXTON, HENRY YEH, COLIN SMITH, ROD GENDRON, KAYLA MORRIS, TIMOTHY MILLER, DAWN SAQUIN, IMENE HADDAD, DANIEL BREWER, PAUL TONNER, CORY ESPINOLA, STEPHANIE IZQUIETA, AND KATHERINE MAUL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, an Arkansas bank; AMG NATIONAL TRUST BANK, a Colorado bank; and LINEAGE BANK, a Tennessee bank, Case No. 1:24-cv-03259-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order on Plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order: Close of Fact and Class Discovery: Jan. 15, 2027 Deadline to move for Class Certification: March 17, 2027 The Defendants' Opposition to Class Cert: May 14, 2027 The Plaintiff's reply in support of June 16, 2027 Class Cert: Close of Expert Discovery: Aug. 18, 2027 Dispositive Motion Deadline: Sept. 29, 2027 The Court will not add a "mediation deadline" to the schedule. The Court is not in the business of ordering parties to mediation. If the Parties want to engage in mediation, they are welcome (and encouraged) to do so, and they now have more time in the schedule to conduct settlement negotiations. No further extensions of these deadlines will be granted absent extreme circumstances. On balance, the Court finds that the arguments for extending the various deadlines in this case outweigh the arguments against. In particular, the prospect of a July mediation that may resolve the matter weighs in favor of extending the deadlines. Evolve is a tech-driven financial services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GKo11z at no extra charge.[CC] EXPERIAN DATA: Class Cert. Expert Disclosures Due Nov. 20 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gilligan et al., v. Experian Data Corporation et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02873-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order denying the motion to stay and for a protective order. The Plaintiff's motion to file a limited sur-reply in response to the Defendants' argument regarding Drummer v. CoStar Group, Inc., Case No. 26-1160 (9th Cir. 2026, filed Feb. 27, 2026), which the Defendants raised for the first time in reply, is granted. The motion to stay is denied because Defendants have not established that a stay is needed. First, the stay would indefinitely delay resolution of all Plaintiff's claims, most of which are not at issue in Variety Media. Second, the Defendants have not identified any specific hardship that they will experience if litigation continues, at least in the short term. Furthermore, class certification expert disclosures are not due until Nov. 20, 2026, and class certification briefing is not set to begin until January 2027. Assuming Defendants are correct that a ruling in Variety Media is coming "shortly", a stay is not needed to avoid prejudice to Defendants or to simplify issues for purposes of the class certification proceedings. Experian is a global information services company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TnJNYb at no extra charge.[CC] EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Eagle Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- HAILEY EAGLE, Plaintiff vs. EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00554 (E.D. Mo., April 15, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant for its practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that the Defendant knew that Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were performing the unpaid work but continued to not record or otherwise count, as "hours worked", and failed to pay for, the time Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees spent working while not logged into their call programs or any other time spent working to log in or out of Defendant's computer systems, applications, and phone system. As a result of Defendant's practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages due to them pursuant to the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiff Hailey Eagle was a non-exempt employee of the Defendant. Defendant Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. is a pharmaceutical benefits company that employs patient care advisors, also referred to as patient care advocates, or customer care advocates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Furniss, Esq. THE FURNISS LAW FIRM, LLC 1423 S. Big Bend Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63117 Telephone: (314) 899-9101 Facsimile: (314) 627-5891 E-mail: ryan@furnisslaw.com - and - Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Steamfitters 449 Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION & RETIREMENT SECURITY FUNDS, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXTREME NETWORKS, INC., EDWARD B. MEYERCORD III, RÉMI THOMAS, CRISTINA TATE, KEVIN RHODES, NORMAN RICE, JONAS BROWN, Case No. 3:24-cv-05102-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 7, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move the Court for an order: (i) Certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23; (ii) Appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) Appointing Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Lead Counsel" or "Labaton") as Class Counsel. The class action is for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs allege, and this Court has sustained, the Defendants' false and misleading statements, omissions, and deceptive acts in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (a)-(c) promulgated thereunder. Lead Plaintiffs request that the following "Class" be certified: "All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Extreme during the period from July 27, 2022 through Jan. 30, 2024, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of any Defendant who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer, director or control person of Extreme during the Class Period and their immediate families; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling or beneficial interest; (v) the subsidiaries and affiliates of Extreme; (vi) Extreme's employee retirement and benefit plan(s), if any, and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded person, in their capacities as such. Extreme is a provider of cloud-based computer networking equipment and related services, developing, manufacturing, and selling wired and wireless network infrastructure hardware, such as wireless access points. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0WaVKG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq. Jesse L. Jensen, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. Danielle S. Lazarus, Esq. Alexandra E. Forgione, Esq. Jacqueline E. Lacovara, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: lormsbee@labaton.com jjensen@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com dlazarus@labaton.com aforgione@labaton.com jlacovara@labaton.com - and - Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com - and - Aaron L. Castle VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detriot, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: acastle@vmtlaw.com FEDCAP REHABILITATION: Harvey Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDCAP REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01360 (D.D.C., April 21, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act and District of Columbia Wage Payment Act. The complaint alleges Defendant's violation of the state laws by failing to pay Named Plaintiff and Class Members at the required overtime premium rate of one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for all compensable weekly overtime the Named Plaintiff and Class Members worked exceeding 40 hours. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Case Manager within the District of Columbia since May 2025. Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. is a Manhattan, New York-based non-profit organization that provides vocational training and employment resources to those who face problems with disabilities and employment-related problems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Yamamoto Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Yamamoto v. Federal Express Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06796-AH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hwang entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Because the Plaintiff fails to offer sufficient evidence of an underlying consistent employer practice, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that common issues predominate over individual issues in this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is subject to denial for failure to satisfy the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff moves for certification of the following class: "All current and former employees of Defendants Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Corporation ("Defendants") who worked for the Defendants within the State of California at any time between May 30, 2021 up until the time that notice of the class action is provided to the class, which necessarily includes both exempt and non-exempt employees, but excluding those employees who were previously employed by Federal Express Ground Package Systems, Inc. and only became employees of Federal Express Corporation due to their merger on June 1, 2024." The Plaintiff worked as a full time, exempt employee for the Defendants from June 2003 until June 2024. He worked as a manager from at least July 2009. FedEx is a provider of package delivery, e-commerce, and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vHAufb at no extra charge.[CC] FERRO DEVELOPMENT: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. FERRO DEVELOPMENT CORP. a/k/a FERRO DEVELOPMENT INC.; LATIN HIALEAH GARDENS RESTAURANT, CORP D/B/A LATIN AMERICAN HOUSE; and PAMS GROUP. LLC D/B/A BRAVO SUPERMARKET, Case No. 1:26-cv-22880-JB (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property, commercial restaurant Latin American House, and commercial supermarket Bravo within to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property, commercial restaurant Latin American House, and commercial supermarket Bravo within the subject property in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and commercial restaurant business, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA., says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. FERRO DEVELOPMENT CORP. a/k/a FERRO DEVELOPMENT INC., owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, including the parking areas, walkways and all areas open to the public.[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 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FERROGLOBE USA: Stalnaker Seeks Equipment Operators' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS STALNAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERROGLOBE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00453-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Stalnaker was employed by the Defendant as an equipment operator from approximately March 2025 until November 2025 in South Carolina. Ferroglobe USA, Inc. is a producer of advanced metallurgical products based in Waterford, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com FIRECUT LLC: Faces Ford Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Firecut LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04663 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen reader-users. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Las Vegas, NV, Firecut LLC owns and operates the website, www.moissaniteco.com, which offers fine and bridal jewelry for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law FIRMENICH INC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FIRMENICH INCORPORATED, a Delaware stock corporation; AROMATIC TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware stock corporation; and DOES 1-100; Defendants, Case No. 26STCV12341 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 16, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages; 2) failure to pay overtime wages; 3) failure to provide meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; 4) failure to provide rest periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; 5) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; 6) failure to provide and maintain accurate records; 7) failure to pay wages when due during employment and at separation; and 8) engagement in unlawful business practice. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants working as a chemical compounder from approximately July 2022 through approximately September 2025. Firmenich Incorporated researches and develops fragrances, aromatic chemicals, and natural and artificial flavors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bardia Aaron Akhavan, Esq. Nahal Barahmand, Esq. AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1720 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (855) 463-4733 E-mail: bardia@baalaw.com nahal@baalaw.com FIVE BELOW: Class Cert. Oral Argument in Himes Set for May 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HIMES, ET AL., v. FIVE BELOW, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-03638-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order that the oral argument on the motion for class certification previously scheduled for April 30, 2026, is rescheduled for Thursday, May 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Five Below is an American chain of specialty discount gift shops. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRSfkT at no extra charge.[CC] FLAGSTAR BANK: Bids for Summary Judgment in Solomon Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Solomon v. Flagstar Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-24482 (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order denying without prejudice the Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike because the Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Class Certification. The parties may re-raise their motions for summary judgment after we’ve adjudicated the Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states contract. Flagstar is a regional bank and a subsidiary of New York Community Bancorp.[CC] FLAGSTAR BANK: Solomon Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TUNNY SOLOMON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-24482-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying the following class: "All natural persons in the United States (a) who purchased a certificate of deposit from the Defendant, (b) whose certificate of deposit matured after Nov. 13, 2019, and (c) whose funds were then paid interest by the Defendant at an annual rate of 0.02% after the Defendant did not send the first account statement"; and -- Appointing class counsel. The suit states that the Plaintiffs' complaint presents the classic case for class certification—a small claim on behalf of thousands of customers impacted by the Defendant's uniform conduct. The case will be presented through common proof, and damages are readily determinable for each class member. Thus, the Court should grant the Plaintiffs' motion. Ms. Solomon brought this putative class action against Flagstar. The operative complaint pleads two counts, (I) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (II) breach of contract. Flagstar is an American commercial bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=whTgSN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com scott@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com FLAME INVESTMENTS: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Summer Allen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. FLAME INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a THE FLAME ADULT ENTERTAINMENT, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, CHRISTINE SARKAR, an individual, Case No. 4:26-cv-00687-CDL (M.D. Ga., April 24, 2026), is brought for damages and other relief brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018 ("TIPA"), as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants made the decision to classify Plaintiffs and other dancers as independent contractors rather than employees, and to not pay them the minimum wage or overtime wages. Defendants made the decision to require Plaintiffs and other dancers to pay certain fees and tip-outs each shift. During their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs made complaints to Defendants that they were not being paid a wage and/or proper wage, nor overtime compensation, and expressed their desire to be paid the same. Furthermore, during their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs made complaints to Defendants about Defendants' policies and provisions pertaining to fees, fines, and tip-outs as alleged herein, including the legality of said policies and provisions, and expressed their desire to have said fees, fines, and tip outs reduced or eliminated entirely. In response, Defendants took retaliatory adverse action against Plaintiffs, including suspensions, increases in fees, imposition of fines, harassing conduct, ban from the Club's premises, and/or termination of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants, having been employed from October 5, 2023 to February 8, 2025. The Flame is an adult entertainment nightclub that features adult entertainers, including nude female entertainers, who perform throughout.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: jrose@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com FLYNN RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, De Leon Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERICK DE LEON, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FLYNN RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a/k/a FLYNN GROUP, LP., d/b/a APPLEBEE'S, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00934 (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2026) is an action against the Defendant to recover monetary damages for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and a half her regular rate for every hour worked in excess of 40 in violation of the federal law. The Plaintiff was paid via direct deposits and electronic paystubs that did not provide accurate information about the number of overtime hours worked. Plaintiff De Leon was a restaurant employee performing general restaurant work for the Defendant from March of 2024 to March 11, 2026, or approximately 2 years. Flynn Restaurant Group, LLC d/b/a APPLEBEE'S, is a foreign profit restaurant corporation, doing business in Jacksonville, Duval County.[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 FOOD SYSTEMS: Class Cert Deadlines Adjourned in Enguerra Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Enguerra, et al., v. Food Systems Unlimited, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00182 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an order granting the parties' request for "the current deadlines for the completion of fact discovery and initiation of dispositive motion practice be adjourned until an order is issued regarding Plaintiffs Motion [to Certify Class]." All deadlines set by the undersigned are adjourned sine die pending a decision by Judge Eric R. Komitee on the Motion to Certify Class. The parties are directed to submit a proposed schedule within 10 days of the decision by Judge Komitee. The parties' request to modify Judge Komitee's May 30, 2025, Order is misdirected to the undersigned and is thus denied without prejudice. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Food Systems is a restaurant management company.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Dolan Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN and JAMES MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an enlargement of time to file their forthcoming motion for class certification to 30 days after the Court rules on the pending expert motions filed pursuant to the Court's Dec. 3, 2025 Order. Accordingly, the reasons for this enlargement are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support of this Motion. The Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendant Ford Motor Company and Defendant does not oppose this Motion. Plaintiffs have attached hereto a proposed Order for the Court's consideration and entry. Ford is a major American global automaker. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ZgXAk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. Adam W. Short, Esq. John J. Maravalli, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com adam@clalegal.com john@clalegal.com - and - W. Randolph Robins, Jr., Esq. LANTZ & ROBINS, P.C. 4900 Augusta Avenue, Suite 120 Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 404-7870 E-mail: rrobins@lantzrobins.com - and - Leland Belew, Esq. Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: lbelew@milberg.com rmcmillan@milberg.com mbreit@milberg.com - and - John R. Fabry, Esq. Morgan R. Ferrell, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM 1717 N. 1-35, Suite 305 Round Rock, TX 78664 Telephone: (512) 671-7277 Facsimile: (512) 238-0275 E-mail: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com mferrell@carlsonattorneys.com - and - Mark Miller, Esq. Julia A. Ozello, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com FRASIER ENTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Freeman Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA FREEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRASIER ENTERPRISES, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00730-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Defendant customers' sensitive personal information from hackers. The complaint relates that the Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative "Class Members" who are or were customers or clients of Defendant. However, the Defendant's network was infiltrated by cybercriminals on March 31, 2026, resulting in over 5GB of Personal Information exfiltrated from Defendant's systems. The information collected by Defendant and likely compromised in the Data Breach includes Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, financial information, and Social Security Numbers ("PII") as well as health insurance information, medical history, prescription information, and similar protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information"). According to the complaint, there has been no notice of the Data Breach, nor assurances offered publicly by Defendant that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficiently to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future. 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, and 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 ongoing effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Cassandra Freeman is a resident and citizen of Palmetto, Georgia. She is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Frasier Enterprise is a multi-franchise ownership organization and leader in the sales and marketing of hearing solutions to consumers, based in Johnstown, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - Tyler Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300 - #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue S., STE 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com FUTURE US LLC: Scarlett Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jackson Scarlett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUTURE US LLC, Case No. CGC-25-621912 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 23, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03449. The Plaintiff's initial Complaint asserts a violation of California Penal, which is part of California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), on behalf of himself and a putative California class. The Complaint alleges that Future embedded into its websites JavaScript code from third-party advertising networks, which Plaintiff contends is a "pen register" for the purposes of CIPA. The Plaintiff claims that, during the putative class period, he visited one of Future's websites, which caused his browser to execute the code, install this alleged "pen register," and transmit Plaintiff's IP address. The Plaintiff further claims that Future did not have a court order to install the alleged "pen register."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy S. Goldman, Esq. FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN + SELZ PC 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2500N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 579-9600 Facsimile: (310) 579-9650 Email: jgoldman@fkks.com GAVIN NEWSOM: Taylor Class Certification Bid Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE ALFRED TAYLOR EL, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02816-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Here, the Court has yet to screen the Plaintiff's complaint and cannot make any determination of the likelihood of success. In addition, a cursory review of the Plaintiff's complaint and the filings to date reflect that the Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and adequately litigate this action. Accordingly, having considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time, and Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice. Even if Plaintiff was granted counsel, his request for class certification is still subject to denial because the Plaintiff simply cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 16, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 45 days. On April 20, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. Gavin Newsom is an American politician and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dwVA3L at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Consumer Vehicle Driving Data Tracking Collection, Case No. 1:24-md-03115-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.'s ("LNRS") motion to dismiss, -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s ("Verisk") motion to dismiss, and -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendants General Motors LLC ("GM") and OnStar LLC's (collectively, the "GM Defendants") motion to dismiss. Each insurance company has a consumer relationship with the New York Plaintiffs through their insurance. Therefore, through the CRA Defendants' offending conduct, the New York Plaintiffs have alleged indirect harm through a chain of consumer-oriented transactions. Therefore, the Court will not dismiss the New York Plaintiffs' NYGBL section 349 claim. The Pennsylvania Plaintiffs cannot allege a sale or lease of goods or services because the only thing some Pennsylvania Plaintiffs received from the CRA Defendants was a free-of-charge annual disclosure. Without an allegation of such a relationship, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs cannot maintain their PUTPCPL claim. Therefore, the Court dismisses the CRA Defendants from Count 54 of the Amended Complaint. The CRA Defendants are dismissed from Counts 11, 12, 21, 24, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 44, 52, 54, 57, and 58. However, the CRA Defendants are not dismissed from Counts 18 and 46. The Defendant GM manufactures and sells vehicles globally. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b2gl0j at no extra charge.[CC] GEORGIA HERITAGE: Gamble Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Ashley Gamble, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union, Case No. SPCV26-00617-ST (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., April 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Tort - Other. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union -- https://gaheritagefcu.org/ -- offers savings, checking, loans, and digital banking solutions to help members across Georgia thrive financially.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Nickolas Jackson, Esq. FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 20013 13th St. Columbus, GA 31901-2137 GEORGIA HERITAGE: McEwen Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Mike McEwen, individually and one behalf of all others similarly situated v. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union, Case No. SPCV26-00612-MI (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., April 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Tort - Other Professional Negligence. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union -- https://gaheritagefcu.org/ -- offers savings, checking, loans, and digital banking solutions to help members across Georgia thrive financially.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com GIORGIO ARMANI: Class Cert. Filing in Ahumada Continued to June 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01175-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert Huie entered an order granting the joint motion to extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file in a reply in support of her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of her motion for class certification is continued to June 8, 2026. Giorgio designs, manufactures, distributes and retails fashion and lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KFd8qS at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Amended Bid to Certify Collective Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00581-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order that: 1. The plaintiffs' amended motions to certify conditionally as a collective action, Ayers, 23-CV-581; Carson, 23-CV-583; and Ferges, 23-CV 585, Doc. 126, are denied. 2. The plaintiffs' amended motions to certify a class, Ayers, 23-CV-581; Carson, 23-CV-583; and Ferges, 23-CV-585, are denied. These three wage-and-hour lawsuits and their predecessor litigation have dragged along for over seven years. Classes and collectives have been certified, decertified, and denied; discovery has explored every possible factual issue; and motions to amend and to reconsider have been filed. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated that it would be more efficient and economical to try these employees' claims on a class or collective basis. Therefore, the motions to certify a class and the motions to certify an FLSA collective will be denied. The plaintiffs propose the following three FLSA collectives in Ayers: "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor at any time between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to Off-the-Clock ("OTC") required work activities such as obtaining and putting on personal protective equipment ("PPE"), gathering materials, documenting production, or speaking to coworkers about production issues at least once prior to the start of their shift ("Pre-Shift Off-the-Clock Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as cleaning workstation, talking to coworkers about production, and removing and/or disposing of PPE at least once following the end of their shift ("Post-Shift Off-the-Clock Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as removing and disposing of PPE and washing hands of hazardous chemicals prior to meal breaks, at least once during their meal break ("Meal Break Off-the-Clock Work Class")." The three proposed NCWHA classes in Ayers are: "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor at any time between Jan. 1, 2020, through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as obtaining and putting on PPE gathering materials, documenting production or speaking to coworkers about production issues at least once prior to the start of their shift (the "Pre-Shift OTC Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020, through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as cleaning workstation, talking to coworkers about production, and removing and/or disposing of PPE at least once following the end of their shift (the "Post-Shift OTC Work Class")." All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020, through 2023 or the date on which GKN began paying hourly employees for their meal breaks, who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as removing and disposing of PPE and washing hands of hazardous chemicals ultimately reducing GKN's promised "duty free" 30 minute meal break policy, at least once during their meal break (the "Meal Break OTC Work Class")." GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fXsQAR at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Amended Bid to Certify Collective Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00583-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order that: 1. The plaintiffs' amended motions to certify conditionally as a collective action, Ayers, 23-CV-581; Carson, 23-CV-583; and Ferges, 23-CV 585, Doc. 126, are denied. 2. The plaintiffs' amended motions to certify a class, Ayers, 23-CV-581; Carson, 23-CV-583; and Ferges, 23-CV-585, are denied. These three wage-and-hour lawsuits and their predecessor litigation have dragged along for over seven years. Classes and collectives have been certified, decertified, and denied; discovery has explored every possible factual issue; and motions to amend and to reconsider have been filed. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated that it would be more efficient and economical to try these employees' claims on a class or collective basis. Therefore, the motions to certify a class and the motions to certify an FLSA collective will be denied. The plaintiffs propose the following three FLSA collectives in Ayers: "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor at any time between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to Off-the-Clock ("OTC") required work activities such as obtaining and putting on personal protective equipment ("PPE"), gathering materials, documenting production, or speaking to coworkers about production issues at least once prior to the start of their shift ("Pre-Shift Off-the-Clock Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as cleaning workstation, talking to coworkers about production, and removing and/or disposing of PPE at least once following the end of their shift ("Post-Shift Off-the-Clock Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as removing and disposing of PPE and washing hands of hazardous chemicals prior to meal breaks, at least once during their meal break ("Meal Break Off-the-Clock Work Class")." The three proposed NCWHA classes in Ayers are: "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor at any time between Jan. 1, 2020, through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as obtaining and putting on PPE gathering materials, documenting production or speaking to coworkers about production issues at least once prior to the start of their shift (the "Pre-Shift OTC Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020, through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as cleaning workstation, talking to coworkers about production, and removing and/or disposing of PPE at least once following the end of their shift (the "Post-Shift OTC Work Class")." All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020, through 2023 or the date on which GKN began paying hourly employees for their meal breaks, who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as removing and disposing of PPE and washing hands of hazardous chemicals ultimately reducing GKN's promised "duty free" 30 minute meal break policy, at least once during their meal break (the "Meal Break OTC Work Class")." GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OjOKPj at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Court Partly Denies Bid to Amend "Ayers" Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned as James Ayers, et al., John Carson, et al., and Tameka Ferges, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 1:23-CV-581, 1:23-CV-583, and 1:23-CV-585 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints in three related wage and hour cases. The cases were filed as FLSA collective actions and state law class actions. The plaintiffs sought leave to file further amended complaints in each case. The proposed amendments included updated collective and class definitions matching those requested in the pending certification motions, and in Carson and Ferges, also restored the named plaintiffs' individual claims, which had been erroneously omitted from the operative amended complaints. The plaintiffs additionally sought to add new claims on behalf of an additional FLSA collective and state law wage and hour class, supported by new allegations about time-shaving. The court granted the housekeeping amendments to the collective and class definitions and the restoration of the named plaintiffs' individual claims, noting that the defendant did not object to the substance of those changes. The court denied the motion to add time-shaving claims. Fact discovery had concluded, and only limited expert discovery remained. Though the plaintiffs asserted they did not discover the time-shaving practices until supplemental discovery in late 2025, the court found that available evidence -- including opt-in plaintiff declarations and statements by plaintiffs' counsel at a June 2024 hearing -- indicated awareness of the issue no later than June 2024. The motion for leave to amend was not filed until January 25, 2026. The court held that adding those claims would be prejudicial to the defendant, who would face additional discovery and further briefing on certification and dispositive motions. The court also found that the proposed time-shaving class and collective presented obvious individual issues, making certification of either unlikely. The court ordered the motions in all three cases granted in part and denied in part, with the amended complaints filed in each case serving as the operative complaints. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FMt13M from PacerMonitor.com GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Amended Bid to Certify Class Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMEKA FERGES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00585-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order that: 1. The plaintiffs' amended motions to certify conditionally as a collective action, Ayers, 23-CV-581; Carson, 23-CV-583; and Ferges, 23-CV 585, Doc. 126, are denied. 2. The plaintiffs' amended motions to certify a class, Ayers, 23-CV-581; Carson, 23-CV-583; and Ferges, 23-CV-585, are denied. These three wage-and-hour lawsuits and their predecessor litigation have dragged along for over seven years. Classes and collectives have been certified, decertified, and denied; discovery has explored every possible factual issue; and motions to amend and to reconsider have been filed. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated that it would be more efficient and economical to try these employees' claims on a class or collective basis. Therefore, the motions to certify a class and the motions to certify an FLSA collective will be denied. The plaintiffs propose the following three FLSA collectives in Ayers: "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor at any time between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to Off-the-Clock ("OTC") required work activities such as obtaining and putting on personal protective equipment ("PPE"), gathering materials, documenting production, or speaking to coworkers about production issues at least once prior to the start of their shift ("Pre-Shift Off-the-Clock Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as cleaning workstation, talking to coworkers about production, and removing and/or disposing of PPE at least once following the end of their shift ("Post-Shift Off-the-Clock Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020 through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as removing and disposing of PPE and washing hands of hazardous chemicals prior to meal breaks, at least once during their meal break ("Meal Break Off-the-Clock Work Class")." The three proposed NCWHA classes in Ayers are: "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor at any time between Jan. 1, 2020, through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as obtaining and putting on PPE gathering materials, documenting production or speaking to coworkers about production issues at least once prior to the start of their shift (the "Pre-Shift OTC Work Class")." "All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020, through the present who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as cleaning workstation, talking to coworkers about production, and removing and/or disposing of PPE at least once following the end of their shift (the "Post-Shift OTC Work Class")." All nonexempt hourly employees who have worked at the Defendant GKN's North Carolina facility in Alamance on the manufacturing floor between Jan. 1, 2020, through 2023 or the date on which GKN began paying hourly employees for their meal breaks, who may have been subjected to OTC required work activities such as removing and disposing of PPE and washing hands of hazardous chemicals ultimately reducing GKN's promised "duty free" 30 minute meal break policy, at least once during their meal break (the "Meal Break OTC Work Class")." GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NnpqHm at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT: Harper Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE HARPER, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees Plaintiff v. GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT SECURITY INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV12395 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 16, 2026) is a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code representative action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other current and former aggrieved employees of Defendants who worked as hourly non-exempt employees during the relevant time period, seeking civil penalties associated with Defendants' violation of the state law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; failure to pay security guards wages on a weekly basis; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position at Defendants' location in Los Angeles from December 2024 until February 9, 2025. Global Entertainment Security Inc. is a California-based company that provides security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. John F. Klopfenstein, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com jfklopfenstein@lelawfirm.com GOPHER RESOURCE: B.A. Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as B.A., a Minor, by and through his Parent and Natural Guardian, SHEENA SINGH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated minor children v. Gopher Resource, LLC, Envirofocus Technologies, LLC, Energy Capital Partners Management, LP, ECP Gopher Holdings, LP, Case No. 26-CA-003141 was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01192 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Gopher Resource -- https://www.gopherresource.com/ -- has been a national environmental solutions provider for over 75 years, protecting the earth and preserving natural resources.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Joseph H. Varner, III, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 100 N Tampa St Ste 4100 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 227-8500 Fax: (813) 229-0134 Email: joe.varner@hklaw.com GRADO LABS INC: Cesario Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Darren Cesario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRADO LABS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03308 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 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, https://www.gradolabs.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. This action arises from Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's Websites contains pervasive, systemic accessibility barriers that deny blind and visually impaired users full and equal access to the goods, services, information, and purchasing functions available to sighted users. These barriers prevent Plaintiff and other legally blind individuals from independently browsing, researching, comparing, and purchasing products, thereby denying them the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations in violation of applicable federal, state, and city law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind who suffers from advanced Retinitis Pigmentosa, a progressive hereditary retinal dystrophy that causes severe peripheral field loss ("tunnel vision"), impaired night vision, decreased contrast sensitivity, and progressive constriction of the functional visual field. GRADO LABS, INC. is a New York-based audio equipment manufacturer headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com GREYSON CLOTHIERS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Greyson Clothiers, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02327-KMM-ECW (D. Minn., April 22, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.greysonclothiers.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers sports apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, polos, quarter zips, dress shirts, sweaters, hoodies, jackets, vests, dresses, skirts, hats, bags, sunglasses, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GRID ONE: Settlement Deal in Scott Class Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT RUFFNER and JEREMY NIMMO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by GRID ONE SOLUTIONS, v. GRID ONE SOLUTIONS, LLC and any related entities, Case No. 3:24-cv-01097-ECC-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Coombe entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for service awards ($3,000.00 for Plaintiff Scott Ruffner and $2,000.00 for Plaintiff Jeffrey Nimmo) and claims administration fees ($10,000.00), is granted; and the Court further orders that the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees is denied in the amount of $48,000 but is granted in the amount of $42,150. In sum, each of the Grinnell factors weigh in favor of final approval of the settlement. Since the settlement, on its face, is "fair, adequate, and reasonable, and not a product of collusion," the final approval of the settlement is granted. On Feb. 25, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement, together with a motion seeking the payment of attorneys' fees and costs, settlement claims administration costs, and service awards. In their Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs assert three causes of action against the Defendant, alleging violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Article Six of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) that occurred while they were working as technicians for Defendant. Grid One specializes in AMI deployments for electric, gas and water utilities. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PLwJmW at no extra charge.[CC] GUARANTEED HOME: Ocampo Wins Bid for FLSA Conditional Cert ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS ALBERTO OCAMPO and CARLOS JIMINEZ, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. GUARANTEED HOME IMPROVEMENT LLC, and JUSTIN ROMANO, individually, and ABRAHAM FINKLER, individually, and RICARDO MARTINEZ, individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-06980-SJB-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Shields entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action: The collective action shall consist of: "All current and former non-managerial employees of the Defendants, who at any time between Oct. 2, 2021 and the present, performed any work for the Defendants as chimney technicians, helpers, or in a similar role." Notice shall be provided in English, Spanish and any other identified primary language of potential class members and shall be disseminated via traditional mail and text-message, with reminder notices issued thirty days after the sending of the initial notice. The opt-in period for potential opt-in plaintiffs shall be sixty days. The Plaintiffs' proposed Notice, filed at Exhibit B to their motion, and their proposed Reminder Notice, filed at Exhibit D to their motion, are approved. The Defendants are directed to provide the Plaintiffs with, to the extent known, the names, mailing addresses, home and mobile telephone numbers, primary languages spoken, and dates of employment of all employees who may be potential plaintiffs herein within 14 days of the date of this Order. Finally, the Defendants are directed to post the Court-approved Notice on the door to the office at Guaranteed Home Improvement’s warehouse located at 500 Old Bethpage Road in Plainview, New York in a location that is visible to all of the potential collective action members. Such notice shall remain posted during the entire opt-in period. The Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient facts to support the modest factual showing that the Defendants' non-managerial chimney technicians and helpers were all subject to common compensation and timekeeping practices, and routinely worked in excess of forty hours per week without appropriate overtime compensation, due to Defendant's common practices. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action is granted. Guaranteed offers exterior home improvements; masonry, roofing, windows, and chimney repairs. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zXBHZp at no extra charge.[CC] H&M FASHION USA: Verduzco Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against H&M Fashion USA, Inc. (H&M). The case is styled as Carlos Verduzco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H&M Fashion USA, Inc. (H&M) doing business as: H&M Fashion USA, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02547-AGS-MMP (S.D. Cal., April 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. H&M -- https://www2.hm.com/en_us/index.html -- is a shopping destination for fashion, home, beauty, kids' clothes and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (951) 285-2179 Email: faythegutierrez@gmail.com H&M FASHION: Aguirre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Natassia Aguirre, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H&M FASHION USA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04570 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2026), is brought to redress Defendant's systematic, company-wide violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), by knowingly failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated customer service representatives overtime premium wages for overtime work they performed before the start of their shifts and during meal breaks. The Defendant required employees to perform off-the-clock work to boot up and log into multiple computer applications before they could clock in and begin taking calls. Defendant knowingly failed to compensate employees for this overtime work. the Defendant directed Plaintiff and other customer service representatives to work, and they routinely did work, more than 40 hours per week on the various work-related tasks, but Defendant did not pay overtime wages earned for all hours worked in excess of 40. The Defendant did not maintain accurate contemporaneous records of all the hours Plaintiff and other customer service representatives worked. The Defendant knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff and other customer service representatives performed non-exempt work that required payment of overtime compensation because it assigned the work they performed, tracked their performance in real time through multiple systems including Calbrio and Genesys Cloud, required supervisors to conduct daily timesheet audits comparing employees' actual clock-in records against their scheduled shifts, and disciplined employees, including Plaintiff, for deviations as small as three minutes from their scheduled start and end times, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant full-time as a customer service representative handling customer calls, emails, and chats from September 2023 until October 2024. The Defendant is a fashion retail company that operates a Customer Service Center in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Danielle M. Sweet, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-233-1550 Fax: 312-233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com HALLISEY & D AGOSTINO: Jackson Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hallisey & D Agostino, LLP. The case is styled as Dateria Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hallisey & D Agostino, LLP, Case No. HHD-CV26-6223898-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., April 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Misc - All Other." Hallisey & D'Agostino, LLP -- https://www.hdllpcpa.com/ -- is a full-service public accounting firm offering a wide array of accounting, tax, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 HALLISEY & D'AGOSTINO: Jehnings Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hallisey & D'Agostino, LLP. case is styled as Melissa Jehnings, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hallisey & D'Agostino, LLP, Case No. HHD-CV26-6223800-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Cty., April 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Hallisey & D'Agostino, LLP -- https://www.hdllpcpa.com/ -- is a full-service public accounting firm offering a wide array of accounting, tax, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main St., Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 HARBOR GROUP: Illegally Charges Tenants Junk Fees, Nesladek Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY NESLADEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR GROUP MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01683 (D. Colo., April 20, 2026) challenges three junk fees that Harbor Group imposes on Plaintiff and other tenants across Colorado in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant charges undisclosed, mandatory, and inflated fees to thousands of Colorado tenants that make housing even less affordable. These junk fees include fees for gas service, common area electric service, and pest control fees (collectively, the "Challenged Fees"). The Challenged Fees are not included in the advertised rent and are not adequately disclosed in -- or even authorized by -- the form leases that Harbor Group imposes on all tenants. Nonetheless, the Challenged Fees are part of the mandatory, monthly cost to rent a Harbor Group apartment, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff files this class action complaint and demand for a jury trial against the Defendant seeking to: (1) stop Harbor Group's practice of charging its tenants unlawful and inflated "junk fees," (2) stop Defendant's practice of charging tenants fees beyond those explicitly authorized by the lease agreements; and (3) obtain damages and other redress for those injured by Harbor Group's conduct. Harbor Group Management Co., LLC is a Virginia limited liability company and a national property management firm for commercial and residential real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Bailey, Esq. JUSTICE FOR THE PEOPLE LEGAL CENTER 501 S. Cherry St., Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (720) 248-8697 E-mail: spencer@justiceforthepeoplecenter.org - and - Benjamin G. DeGolia, Esq. DEGOLIA LAW P.C. 2701 Lawrence St. Denver, CO 80205 Telephone: (303) 210-0211 E-mail: benjamin@degolialaw.com - and - Brianne Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 882-5122 E-mail: brianne@towardsjustice.org HARRISON RURAL: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Harris Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARRISON RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ASSOCIATION, a West Virginia non-profit corporation; DCI, DIGITAL CONNECTIONS, INC., a corporation; PATHWAYS, a corporation; CALIX, INC., a corporation; SEGRA, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00042-TSK (W. Va., April 16, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and West Virginia state law, seeking damages and all additional appropriate relief for Defendants' systematic and unlawful interception, monitoring, access, and disclosure of the private Internet communications and browsing activities of Plaintiff and other HREA's Internet customers without their knowledge or consent. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided HREA General Manager Terry Stout with administrative tools and software that allowed him to fully access the private accounts of subscribing Internet customers of HREA and monitor their Internet activity, which he used to unlawfully monitor and disclose customers' private Internet activities. As a result of Defendants' intrusion, the Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages including loss of privacy, emotional distress, and diminished value of their Internet services, says the suit. Harrison Rural Electrification Association is an electric utility cooperative corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean W. Cook, Esq. 309 Dolaron Lane South Charleston, WV 25309 Telephone: (681) 781-4369 Facsimile: (681) 313-9809 E-mail: sean@seanwcooklaw.com - and - Scott H. Kaminski, Esq. RAY, WINTON & KELLEY, PLLC 109 Capitol Street, Suite 700 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 342-1141 Facsimile: (304) 342-0691 E-mail: ScottKaminski@rwk-law.com HERTZ CORPORATION: Class Cert Discovery in Sconce Due Dec. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sconce v. Hertz Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01197 (E.D. Cal., Filed: June 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting joint stipulation to amend the scheduling order as follows: -- Class certification discovery shall be completed by Dec. 13, 2026 -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is Jan. 24, 2027, with a modified briefing schedule as stated in the parties'36 stipulation -- All motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than July 29, 2026 -- Final Pre-Trial Conference currently set for Aug. 23, 2027, is reset for Dec. 13, 2027 -- Jury Trial currently set for Oct. 27, 2027, is reset for Feb. 22, 2028 at 9:00 AM. The nature of suit states Civil Rights --Employment. Hertz is an American car rental company.[CC] HOBBY LOBBY STORES: Ellis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The case is styled as Mandi Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03161-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal., April 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hobby Lobby -- https://www.hobbylobby.com/ -- is a privately owned arts-and-crafts retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (951) 285-2179 Email: faythegutierrez@gmail.com INTEGRITY VEHICLE: Weaver Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrity Vehicle Group, Inc. The case is styled as William Weaver, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Integrity Vehicle Group, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-00884 (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Integrity Auto Group Inc. -- https://www.integrityautousa.com/ -- is a #1 source for buying a quality pre-owned vehicle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Antitrust Suits in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2026, that three class action complaints were filed against the company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." A consolidated amended class action complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, plaintiff Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the court heard argument on the parties respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues and denied Intuitives motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive's motion, the Court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to EndoWrist instruments, and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive s motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. It also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. On July 30, 2024, the court granted Intuitive's motion for reconsideration, vacating those portions of the court's March 31, 2024, Order granting summary judgment as to the definition of a U.S. market for EndoWrist instrument repair and replacement and Intuitive's market power in such a market. On March 31, 2025, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. No trial date has been scheduled for this matter. Additionally, the company is involved in other legal proceedings arising from similar allegations, including related putative class and derivative actions and governmental inquiries, which remain in various stages. Intuitive Surgical Inc. is a medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets robotic-assisted surgical systems and related instruments and accessories. The company is best known for its da Vinci Surgical System, which is used in a range of minimally invasive surgical procedures worldwide. IOWA HEALTH: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Randolph and Maggie McMahon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a UNITYPOINT HEALTH, Case No. 4:26-cv-04110-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., April 24, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime and regular wages brought by hourly paid employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), arising from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated hourly employees all earned regular and overtime pay for all time worked. The Defendant has a wage and hour policy and practice that rounds Plaintiffs' and similarly situated hourly employees' clock in and clock out times to the advantage of Defendant and to the detriment of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated hourly employees. The Defendant's time clock rounding policies and practices violate the FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA and result in the underpayment of overtime and regular wages. the Defendant's wage violations will be shown from, among other things, a comparison of the face of Defendant's pay stubs issued to employees, and Defendant's own time records for those same employees., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked at the Unity Point facility owned and operated by Defendant. Iowa Health System d/b/a UnityPoint Health operates, owns, and controls hospitals and health care facilities in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-726-3400 IRVING, TX: Faces Nix Suit Over Unlawful Detention Policy --------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN NIX, JONATHAN SORRELLI, and MATTHEW ALARCON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF IRVING, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01228-N (N.D. Tex., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant brought under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On April 30, 2024, the City promulgated a written policy for implementation on May 1, 2024, prohibiting the City's municipal judges/Dallas County Magistrates from holding magistrate hearings for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals charged with a class B misdemeanor or above. The complaint alleges that the City's policy, practice, and procedure denied Plaintiffs, who were arrested in the City of Irving on Dallas County charges and detained in the Irving Jail, due process in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals were arrested, jailed, and held without the ability to bail or see a magistrate without unnecessary delay. Instead, they were held hours and even days longer than the law allows. The Plaintiffs were denied access to the Irving Judge/Dallas County magistrate and unnecessarily transported to the Dallas County jail to be rebooked and wait to see another Dallas County magistrate housed downtown. The City's policy has denied each and every individual arrested in the City on Dallas County charges their constitutional right to be brought before a magistrate to have charges read to them and bail assessed without unnecessary delay as the law requires, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Nix was arrested on August 1, 2025. He was denied access to the Irving Municipal Judge/Dallas County magistrate. Instead, he was held in the Irving Jail without the ability to bail or see a magistrate until he was unnecessarily transferred to the Dallas County jail where he did not receive a hearing by a magistrate until August 3, 2025. City of Irving is a subdivision of the State of Texas and Dallas County, Texas and can be served at City of Irving, City Hall.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com - and - James A. Spangler, Jr., Esq. Huma T. Yasin, Esq. David A. Burns, Esq. SPANGLER LAW PLLC 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 2620 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-3030 E-mail: jim@spanglerlaw.com hyasin@spanglerlaw.com dburns@spanglerlaw.com J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.B. Hunt Transport, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Carlos Rodriguez a/k/a Victor Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.B. Hunt Transport, LLC, National Star Services, Inc., Case No. 26STCV12928 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. -- https://www.jbhunt.com/ -- is an American transportation and logistics company based in Lowell, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com J.E.T. LIMOUSINES: McGhee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as William McGhee and Michael Reynolds, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation, LLC; JET Limousines Operations, LLC; Arizona Commercial Transportation Services, LLC; Transportation Inc.; Salt River Tubing & Recreation, Inc.; Salt River Tubing Operations, LLC; William Jinks; Mary Ann Cleary; and Eugene Thomas, Case No. 2:24-cv-03394-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying Count II (violations of the Arizona Wage Act, "AWA"); Count III (violations of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, "AMWA"); Count IV (violations of the Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act, FWHFA); and Count V (unjust enrichment) as class action claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; -- appointing Named Plaintiffs as class representatives; -- appointing Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C as Class Counsel; -- requiring the Defendants to produce contact and updated damages-related information for all Rule 23 Class members; and -- providing the parties an opportunity to meet and confer to submit for the Court's approval a notice to be issued to the Rule 23 Class. The Plaintiffs request certification of a Rule 23 Class that includes the following: "All current and former employees of the Defendants who have performed chauffeur services for J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation, LLC at any time from Nov. 29, 2021 though the date notice is issued." Excluded from the class are any of the Defendants' managers and employees whose primary duties were not the transportation of the Defendants' customers. JET provides chauffeured transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zdFRMv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com JAVY COFFEE: Nelson Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAVY COFFEE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01650-RMG (D.S.C., April 20, 2026) alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending telemarketing text messages to his telephone number that he placed on the National Do Not Call Registry without consent. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class members never consented to receive telemarketing text messages. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls and messages from or on behalf of Defendant. Javy Coffee Company is a Delaware registered company that sells concentrated coffee and related products in South Carolina and across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany N. Clark, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (864) 414-8120 E-mail: brittany@kaufmanpa.com JAY BUTLER: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BARLOW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jay Butler Ltd, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04538 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://jaybutler.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Barlow and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 25, 2026, the Plaintiff searched Google for online stores offering men loafers and found the Defendant's website. After reviewing customer feedback of the products, he began exploring the website and came across the Barclay Bit Driving Loafer. However, while navigating the website and attempting to complete his purchase, he encountered accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to complete the transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Barlow seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Jay Butler Ltd. operates the website that offers men's loafers, dress shoes, casual footwear, leather belts, wallets, shoe accessories, and other classic leather goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law JEROME HARRIS: Class Settlement in CarMichael Gets Prelim. Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al., v. HARRIS, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement with the Defendant Symetra Life Insurance Company filed April 10, 2026. The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval of the Symetra settlement is met. The Court will enter a separate order to govern the notice period and set the date for the final approval hearing. The Court thoroughly analyzed the Plaintiffs' proposed class action claims against Symetra in the Class Certification Order and concluded that certain claims against Symetra met the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test. The Court adopts the same reasoning here and holds that the proposed settlement class will be able to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test and therefore the Court will be able to certify the class for purposes of the Symetra settlement. Having decided that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met, the Court finds that the Court will likely be able to certify the class for purposes of approving the settlement. This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a class of individuals defined as: "All persons residing in the United States who are participants in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan, all persons residing in the United States who are beneficiaries entitled to benefits as of Jan. 1, 2021, under the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan." The Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged tortfeasors. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=88mlWp at no extra charge.[CC] JOSEPH EDLOW: Standing Order in Gangapuram Entered -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARSHINI GANGAPURAM, et al., v. JOSEPH B. EDLOW, Case No. 8:26-cv-00953-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered a standing order: Otherwise, the Plaintiff is directed forthwith to serve this Order on all parties. The action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge John W. Holcomb. The Court and the litigants bear joint responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts. The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5-3.1. Lead trial counsel for each party must attend every status conference, scheduling conference, and pretrial conference set by the Court Motions shall be filed and set for hearing in person, in Courtroom 9D of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, located at 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California, in accordance with L.R. 6-1. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1mvpTG at no extra charge.[CC] JRK PROPERTY: Faces Fongaro Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY FONGARO and RANDALL GURVITZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04213 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information. As part of its business, the Defendant receives and maintains the PII of thousands of its consumers. In collecting and maintaining the PII, the Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. After all, the Plaintiffs and Class Members themselves took reasonable steps to secure their PII. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiffs are data breach victims. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. JRK Property Holdings, Inc. is a privately owned real estate investment company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com KARDIA TRANSPORT: Acevedo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHIANA ACEVEDO, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. KARDIA TRANSPORT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00860 (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2026) is an action against the Defendant to recover monetary damages for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and a half her regular rate for every hour worked in excess of 40 in violation of the federal law. The Plaintiff was paid via direct deposits and electronic paystubs that did not provide accurate information about the number of overtime hours worked. Plaintiff Acevedo was employed by the Defendant as an Amazon package delivery driver from February 1, 2025 to April 15, 2026, or approximately 1 year and two and a half months. She was terminated after having engaged in statutorily protected activity under the Family Medical Leave Act. Kardia Transport, LLC is a logistics company and Amazon delivery service provider, offering delivery services of Amazon packages.[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 KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Class Cert. Bid in Fammous Due July 8 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fammons v. Kehe Distributors, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02534 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order staying formal discovery through July 8, 2026. The court further entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification no later than Oct. 30. 2026 -- The Defendant shall file its opposition no later than Dec. 11, 2026 -- The plaintiff shall file his reply no later than Jan. 8, 2027. On April 16, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the class certification deadline and stay formal discovery through July 8, 2026, in light of their scheduled mediation on July 8, 2026. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. KeHE is a national distributor for grocery stores, supermarkets, and online vendors.[CC] KEMPER CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kozuszek Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN KOZUSZEK, individually and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEMPER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04428 (N.D. Ill., April 20, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach. On April 13, 2026, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its IT Network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. Since the data breach occurred, the notorious cybercriminal group "ShinyHunters" claimed responsibility for such incident. ShinyHunters claims to have leaked 13 million records exfiltrated from Defendant's IT Network, consisting of 29 GB of data, including files containing sensitive private information. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff and Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Kemper Corporation is a Chicago, Illinois-based insurance provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com KENNEDY MART: Cedeno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- MARIO CEDENO, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. KENNEDY MART, INC., d/b/a CURRY LEAVES INDIAN CUISINE, SAJI MATHEW, individually, and KRISH UNNY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01210 (M.D. Fla., April 24, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages, and retaliatory discharge damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. During the relevant periods of employment, the Plaintiff primarily performed as a dishwasher and maintenance worker. The Plaintiff worked six days per week or a total of 90 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not maintain accurate time records of the hours worked by the Plaintiff and other employees. As a result, the Plaintiff was only credited for 78 hours of work per week and did not proper overtime compensation, alleges the suit. Kennedy Mart, Inc. owns and operates an Indian restaurant in Tampa, FL. [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 KROGER CO: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to Dec. 3 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ANTOSSYAN, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. THE KROGER, CO., Case No. 2:25-cv-05165-GW-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order as follows: -- The hearing on the Plaintiff's class certification motion is continued to Dec. 3, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. -- The reply brief will be filed by Nov. 17, 2026. There will be no further continuances granted. Kroger is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kgOPNM at no extra charge.[CC] L&W SUPPLY: Solares Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JUAN SOLARES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L&W SUPPLY CORPORATION, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV06291, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04183 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts eight causes of action for: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Unreimbursed Business Expenses; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination; (7) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; and (8) Unlawful Business Practices. L&W Supply Corporation is a major specialty distributor of interior building materials in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, Esq. Douglas D. Clark, 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: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com douglas.clark@ogletree.com LAB LOGISTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Couriers, Yousseff Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMIR YOUSSEFF and GRACE GARZA-LAURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAB LOGISTICS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-40108 (D. Mass., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Wage Rules and Regulations. Plaintiffs Yousseff and Garza-Laureles worked for Lab Logistics as couriers in Massachusetts from approximately July 2021 until February 2026 and from approximately September 2025 until February 2026, respectively. Lab Logistics LLC is a logistics company, doing business in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com LAS VEGAS, NV: Myers Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK MYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, a political subdivision of the state of Nevada; JASON BROOKS, individually; SERGIO GUZMAN, individually; and JASON POTTS, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-00562-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(b)(1) (or alternatively or conjunctively, Rule 23(c)(4)). The case challenges an ongoing and systemic pattern of alleged Constitutional violations by the City of Las Vegas and its City Marshals, who have been conducting law enforcement activities— including traffic stops, detentions, searches, and arrests—far beyond their limited territorial jurisdiction permitted by Nevada Revised Statutes section 280.125(3) and Las Vegas Municipal Code section 2.28.080. The proposed Injunctive Relief Class is defined as: "All persons who have in the past been detained, are currently at risk of being detained, or are in the future detained, searched, arrested, or cited by City of Las Vegas Marshals outside of areas "owned, leased or otherwise under the control" of the City of Las Vegas, in violation of NRS section 280.125 and Las Vegas Municipal Code section 2.28.080." The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3), defined as: "All persons who, within two years prior to the filing of the complaint, were detained, searched, arrested, or punished by fine or incarceration due to law enforcement actions undertaken by City of Las Vegas Marshals outside the territorial jurisdictional limits of real property "owned, leased or otherwise under the control" of the City of Las Vegas, in violation of NRS section 280.125 and Las Vegas Municipal Code section 2.28.080." Las Vegas is a resort city, known primarily for its gambling, shopping, fine dining, entertainment, and nightlife. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iG3SDV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Breeden, Esq. BREEDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 7432 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 819-7770 Facsimile: (702) 819-7771 E-mail: Adam@Breedenandassociates.com LINCOLN PROPERTY: Spence Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info -------------------------------------------------------------- ISRAEL SPENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY COMMERCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01186-S (N.D. Tex., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. 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. Lincoln Property Company Commercial, LLC is a real estate firm based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com LKQ CORP: Miami GESE Sues Over Losses Following Uni-Select Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LKQ CORPORATION, JUSTIN JUDE, RICK GALLOWAY, and DOMINICK P. ZARCONE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00498 (M.D. Tenn., April 22, 2026) is a securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired LKQ common stock between February 27, 2023 and July 23, 2025, inclusive, against LKQ and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. In February 2023, LKQ announced plans to acquire its competitor, Uni-Select Incorporated, including Uni-Select's United States operating subsidiary, FinishMaster. FinishMaster offered automotive refinish and painting services at approximately 200 locations throughout the United States, accounting for approximately 40% of Uni-Select's annual revenue. LKQ paid approximately $2.1 billion to acquire Uni-Select. Throughout the Class Period, LKQ repeatedly touted the benefits of the acquisition. In announcing the acquisition in February 2023, LKQ represented that the acquisition was a "compelling strategic fit" to "enhance LKQ's business and drive profitable growth." LKQ also represented that the acquisition presented "minimal integration risk," including because "Uni Select's FinishMaster business improves LKQ's scale and product mix to compete" in the North American automotive paint segment, says the suit. After completing the acquisition in August 2023, LKQ began to integrate FinishMaster into the Company's North American operations. During the Class Period, the Defendants touted the integration as a "highly synergistic opportunity" to protect LKQ against losing market share to its competitors. However, these and similar statements made throughout the Class Period were false. In truth, FinishMaster was losing major customers and market share, including the business of key clients that were critical to revenue. As LKQ later admitted, these customer losses began before the acquisition started and only grew worse as LKQ continued to integrate FinishMaster into its operations, the suit asserts. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of LKQ common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Based in Antioch, Tennessee, LKQ Corporation is a global distributor of alternative collision replacement parts, recycled engines, and other vehicle components for the repair of automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. Kristi S. McGregor, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7000 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com kmcgregor@sanfordheisler.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33315 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com LOANUNITED.COM: Huff Seeks to Stay Claims Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDI HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOANUNITED.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00343-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting the motion to clarify its prior Order, -- directing the Clerk to reinstate the case with respect to the remaining Plaintiffs, and -- staying Huff's claims pending arbitration. The Plaintiff Candi Huff requests the Court clarify and reconsider two respective, discrete aspects of its Order dismissing this matter in favor of arbitration. First, the Court correctly ruled that the status of the Opt-in Plaintiffs who were not subject to Loan United's motion to dismiss "has not been resolved," and did not enter any ruling with respect to them. Thus, the dismissal of this matter should have been limited to Huff. However, the final judgment entered by the Clerk dismissed the complete case. Huff requests the Court clarify its Order so that the judgment and dismissal are limited to Huff, consistent with the Court's Order and Eleventh Circuit authority. Second, Huff requests the Court reconsider a stay of her claims pending arbitration. Although, as the Court recognizes, Smith v. Spizzirri, requires a stay pending arbitration when requested by a litigant, Spizzirri does not mandate dismissal in the absence of such a request. Because this matter should not be dismissed in its entirety, Huff requests the Court stay her claims pending arbitration. LoanUnited.com is a mortgage company that provides FHA, VA, and conventional loans, home purchase, home refinance, and lending services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xyf010 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Jeremy Stephens, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 Facsimile: (470) 639-6866 E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com AFrisch@forthepeople.com MACYS RETAIL: Parties Must File Proposed Scheduling Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Agnew, et al., v. Macys Retail Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02006 (W.D. Wash., Filed Oct. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order that the parties shall file a joint proposed scheduling order for the filing of the Motion for Class Certification including an agreed briefing schedule for the class certification motion, and if applicable, for any anticipated dispositive motions. If the parties are unable to agree on any part of the proposed schedule, they may present their positions in separate paragraphs, but no separate reports are to be filed. The joint proposal shall be filed within seven (7) days from the date of this order. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Macy's owns and operates department stores.[CC] MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in CICH Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CENTRAL ILLINOIS CARPENTERS HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, HOWARD C. HECKES, and RUSSELL T. TIEJEMA, Corporation et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01052-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Torres entered an order appointing lead Plaintiff and approving selection of lead counsel. Based on Robbins Geller's extensive experience in securities litigation and the firm's resources, the Court approves the selection of Robbins Geller as lead counsel for the proposed class. All securities class actions arising out of the same facts and claims on behalf of purchasers of Masonite International Corporation securities subsequently filed in, or transferred to, this District shall be consolidated into this action. The parties shall notify the Court of any other such related action within a reasonable time of becoming aware of such related action. This order shall apply to every such action, absent an order of the Court. A party objecting to such consolidation, or to any other provisions of this order, must file an application for relief from this order within ten days after the action is consolidated into this action. Accordingly, the Pension Fund meets the PSLRA's requirements. The Pension Fund's motion is timely. No other investor has filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, and the Pension Fund represents that "[t]o the best of the Pension Fund's counsel's knowledge, there are no other plaintiffs with a larger financial interest." Masonite is a designer, manufacturer and distributor of interior and exterior doors. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZBcjRa at no extra charge.[CC] MAT KING: Class Discovery & Certification Order Entered in Lindke ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN LINDKE, and all those similarly situated, et al., v. MAT KING, in his official and personal capacities, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-11767-MFL-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Leitman entered an order re class discovery and certification. Upon the agreement of counsel for Michael Schultz, Durrand Ashford, and Justin Cardella and counsel for Defendants, the deadline to provide responsive duces tecum documents for these Plaintiffs is extended to May 13, 2026, due to the schedule of the Plaintiffs' counsel. Additionally, the Plaintiff Durrand Ashford has filed for class certification seeking appointment of class representative and class counsel. The Plaintiffs Schultz and Cardella, by counsel, have joined the motion. Counsel for the Plaintiff Ashford has agreed that the Defendants' response to the motion is extended until 21 days after the completion of discovery or as otherwise further ordered by the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YmJNBN at no extra charge.[CC] MCCORMICK COUNTY, SC: Class Cert Bid Replies Due May 8 in Coker --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coker v. MCCORMICK COUNTY, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-13692 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Timothy M. Cain entered an order granting Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re motion to Certify Class Conditional Certification. -- Replies due by May 8, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Hossain Seeks to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hossain, et al., v. Mediastar Limited et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01201-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting the following documents be filed under seal: 1. Exhibit 2 to the Kopel Declaration, 2. Exhibit 3 to the Kopel Declaration, 3. Exhibit 9 to the Kopel Declaration, 4. portions of the Motion for Class Certification that rely on the aforementioned Exhibits or other documents marked "Confidential", and 5. portions of the accompanying Kopel Declaration that rely on the aforementioned Exhibits or other documents marked "Confidential." Exhibit 2 to the Kopel Declaration is a spreadsheet containing the total number of Website subscribers to Chorki who paid for their subscriptions via Stripe, Inc.'s services from Feb. 16, 2022 through Oct. 16, 2024. Exhibit 3 to the Kopel Declaration is a spreadsheet from Google LLC containing the number of subscribers, by day, who used the Android App Store to pay for their subscriptions between Feb. 16, 2022, and Oct. 27, 2024. Exhibit 9 to the Kopel Declaration is a spreadsheet from Apple Inc. containing the total number of iOS App subscribers who used the App Store to pay for their subscriptions between Feb. 16, 2022, and Aug. 7, 2024. The Defendant is a Bangladesh-based media company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UwVYpj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Hossain Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hossain, et al., v. Mediastar Limited et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01201-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Failla entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to seal certain portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, portions of the accompanying Kopel Declaration in support of Class Certification, and Exhibits 2-3, and 9 to the Kopel declaration. The Clerk of Court is directed to accept the proposed redactions in docket entries 120 and 122 and maintain the documents discussed above in docket entries 123 and 124 under seal, viewable to the Court and the parties only. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 118. Separately, given the default of Defendant Mediastar Limited and its lack of representation, as well as the Plaintiffs' current maintenance of the escrow account, the Plaintiffs are directed to provide an accounting of the funds received into the escrow account on or before June 30, 2026. Mediastar is a Bangladesh-based media company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gi4Cuc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com MEDIASTAR LTD: Hossain Seeks to Certify Account Holder Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MUZAKKIR HOSSAIN and SHAKHAWAT HASSAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MEDIASTAR LIMITED d/b/a CHORKI, Case No. 1:24-cv-01201-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3): (i) Certifying a class of "all Chorki account holders who, between Feb.16, 2022 and Nov. 6, 2024, viewed at least one video on the Website or on the App (the "Class");" (ii) Appointing the Plaintiffs Muzakkir Hossain and Shakhawat Hassan as representatives of that Class; and (iii) Appointing Yitzchak Kopel, Max S. Roberts, and Victoria X. Zhou of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel. The Defendant is a Bangladesh-based media company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z9APK9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Nair Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEJA NAIR, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, the general public, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., an Illinois corporation; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP, an Illinois limited partnership; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00331-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 18, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move the Court for an order: (1) granting class certification of the Settlement Class solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 23; (2) preliminarily approving the Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class Notice (the "Settlement") between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, (3) appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter L. Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel; (4) appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; (5) approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and related forms; (6) directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement Class; (7) finding the Settlement merits approval under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; and (8) scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and costs. The "Class" consists of: "All persons employed by any Defendants in California and classified as a non-exempt warehouse employee who worked in one or more of the positions listed in Exhibit E attached to the Settlement Agreement during the Class Period." "Class Member" or "Settlement Class Member" means a member of the Class, as either a Participating Class Member or Non-Participating Class Member. "Class Period" means the period from Dec. 22, 2017, through the date the Court preliminarily approves this class action settlement. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VrAv6e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Glenn Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 8605 Santa Monica Bl., West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 725-9094 Facsimile: (213) 634-2485 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com caroline@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 8605 Santa Monica Bl., PMB 63354 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com MEDVI LLC: Faces J.F. Suit Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- J.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDVI LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04247 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action against Defendant MEDVi for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive information, including personally identifiable information and protected health information, in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. As a necessary part of providing its products and services, MEDVi collects its patients' and customers' sensitive PII and PHI. MEDVi utilizes tracking technologies intended for advertising, analytics, and user profiling within the healthcare services context, resulting in the disclosure of information about identifiable individuals seeking medical treatment to third parties outside the provider-patient relationship, says the suit. Allegedly, neither Plaintiff nor Class Members gave informed consent for MEDVi to transmit their healthcare-related communications and identifying information to any other third party, including Google LLC, for advertising or analytics purposes. Purported consent obtained through pre-checked boxes or similar methods was invalid, uninformed, or not legally effective. As a result of MEDVi's conduct, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was intercepted, disseminated, and integrated into Google's data systems, where it is utilized to develop profiles, assess behavior, and facilitate targeted advertising and other commercial activities, the suit asserts. MEDVi LLC is an American company that provides remote personalized health, wellness and longevity services, accessible from its patients' and customers' homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Yufei Wang, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com jwesterman@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com ywang@ahdootwolfson.com MERCY HEALTH: Wins Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE PECK, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. MERCY HEALTH, MERCY HEALTH FOUNDATION, and MHM SUPPORT SERVICES, Case No. 4:21-cv-00834-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting Defendants' motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The Plaintiff's individual claims will remain pending before this Court, and the Court will dismiss the Opt-In Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. At Plaintiff's request, which Defendants have not opposed, and to avoid prejudice to those Opt-In Plaintiffs who wish to file individual lawsuits, the Court will also invoke its equitable powers to toll the applicable statute of limitations for 60 days after entry of this Memorandum and Order. The Defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally certified FLSA class is granted. On the record before the Court, there is no basis to find a uniform policy, proof of which would prove an FLSA violation as to each member of the collective. Bouaphakeo, 765 F.3d at 796. Thus, decertification is required. The Plaintiff Danielle Peck brought this putative class and collective action in 2021, alleging that she and other similarly situated employees were deprived of wages through automatic deductions from their paychecks for meal breaks despite that Defendants knew they regularly worked through meal breaks, in violation of the FLSA, the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act, and Oklahoma common law. Following an unsuccessful mediation, Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify her FLSA claim as a collective action under the FLSA. The Court granted that motion and conditionally certified an FLSA collective class consisting of: All hourly-paid employees of the Defendants who were or are subject to the automatic meal break deduction policies at any time on or after three (3) years prior to the date on which the Court approves the collective certification. Mercy Health is the parent corporation of hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, and other healthcare providers primarily located in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sq1b1r at no extra charge.[CC] METACORP LLC: Hall Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metacorp, LLC. The case is styled as Travis Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Metacorp, LLC, Case No. 7:26-cv-00344-EKD-CKM (W.D. Va., April 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Metacorp, LLC -- https://metacorpllc.com/ -- is a third-party collection agency providing efficient, respectful, and compliant debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Zimmerman Class Cert. Reply Due May 28 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zimmerman v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345 (S.D. Iowa, Filed Sept. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger entered an order granting unresisted motion for extension of time to file. The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of her Motion for Class Certification is now due May 28, 2026. The Plaintiff's Resistance to Defendant's Motion to Strike is now due May 28, 2026. The Plaintiff's Expert Reports are now due June 11, 2026. The Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion to Strike is now due July 2, 2026. The Defendant's Expert Reports are now due 8/13/2026. The Plaintiff's Rebuttal Reports are now due Sept. 17. 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Midland provides life insurance and annuities.[CC] MISSISSIPPI STONE COUNTY: Sencial Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stone County, Mississippi, et al. The case is styled as Steven Sencial, on behalf and all others similarly situated v. Stone County, Mississippi; Todd Stewart, Medical Provider, in official capacity; Case No. 1:26-cv-00128-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., April 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Stone County -- https://www.stonecountyms.gov/ -- is a county located in the U.S. state of Mississipp.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Kruzel Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA KRUZEL, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC.; MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 6:23-cv-01183-AA (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Agreement's terms, including dates and deadlines, are preliminarily approved. 1. The proposed class is certified for settlement purposes only under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Molina Healthcare, Inc. or Molina Healthcare of California placed, or Icario, Inc. placed on behalf of Molina Healthcare, Inc. or Molina Healthcare of California, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone, but not assigned to a person who has or had an account or plan with Molina Healthcare, Inc. or Molina Healthcare of California, (3) which Molina Healthcare, Inc., Molina Healthcare of California or Icario, Inc. dispositioned as Wrong Number in its records and is one of the numbers that appears in either MOLINA_006055 or ICARIO000017 (4) in connection with which Molina Healthcare, Inc., or Molina Healthcare of California or Icario, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (5) from May 30, 2021 through the date of preliminary approval"; 2. James L. Davidson of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC and Max S. Morgan of The Weitz Firm, LLC are appointed class counsel for the settlement class for settlement purposes only; 3. The Plaintiff Melissa Kruzel is appointed class representative for the settlement class for settlement purposes only; 4. A final fairness hearing on the final approval of class action settlement shall be held by telephone before this Court on Aug. 17, 2026 at 10:00 am. The Court concludes that there are no Bluetooth indicia of collusion and that the risk of collusion is low. This factor favors preliminary approval of the settlement. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by placing artificial or prerecorded non-emergency voice calls absent prior express consent. Within thirty days of the date that this Court approves the settlement agreement, the Defendants will create a non-reversionary common fund in the amount of $1,927,500. Molina is an American managed care company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vifIe5 at no extra charge.[CC] MONDAY SWIMWEAR: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDAY SWIMWEAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-693 (E.D. Wis., April 21, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://mondayswimwear.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cruz and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff Cruz searched online for women's swimwear and discovered the Defendant's website. After reviewing customer feedback, she decided to visit the website to explore the available products and make a purchase. However, while navigating the website using a keyboard and screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. Plaintiff Cruz seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Monday Swimwear, LLC operates the website that offers a selection of swimwear, resort style and activewear apparel, including one-pieces, bikini tops, bottoms, bras and leggings, and related accessories like hats, sunglasses, and bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Settlement Deal in Gay Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANE GAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MORTGAGE CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00217-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jordan entered an order as follows: 1. The Court finally approves the proposed settlement agreement. 2. The Court finally certifies a class of: "all individuals in the United States whose PII was impacted by the Data Incident, including all those who were sent notice of the Data Incident." 3. The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims in this action between the class and the Defendants. 4. The Court approves the parties' proposed allocation plan as a fair and reasonable method of allocating the settlement fund among class members. 5. The Court awards class counsel $137,500.00 in attorney's fees and expenses. The Court awards lead Plaintiff Lane Gay $3,000.00 for expenses. The parties and counsel have diligently litigated this case and achieved a favorable settlement not only for the named parties, but also for the absent class members. The reasonableness of the settlement is reflected by the lack of any objection to it. The Defendant is a nationwide property services provider. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S05vbQ at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Michael E Kasaba Sues Over Deceptive Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL E KASABA LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01263-S (N.D. Tex., April 20, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to Defendants' policy of charging mortgage loan borrowers prepayment penalties that they had no right to charge in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conduct was substantially injurious to Plaintiff and other consumers in that they have been forced to pay improper, abusive, and/or unconscionable prepayment penalties. The Defendants' conduct in assessing excessive prepayment penalties is in breach of its contracts with borrowers and abusing its contractual discretion to define key contractual provisions as permitting the assessment of these prepayment penalties violated the public policy against such penalties. The Defendants falsely represented, or created the tendency or likelihood to believe the deception, that the prepayment penalty would be assessed based on the anniversary date of the loan, when in fact Defendants' practice was to assess the prepayment penalty based on the later date of the first installment payment on the loan. The Plaintiff and Sub-Class Members relied on Defendants' false representation in the fixed rate note and reasonably expected to incur, at most, a 4% prepayment penalty based on the date of the prepayment, says the suit. On April 4, 2024, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement relating to a residential property located in California. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper is one of the largest mortgage servicer providers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Charest, Esq. Clayton R. Mahaffey, Esq. Daniel Coman, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: dcharest@burnscharest.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. Tyler J. Dosaj, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com tyler@kicklawfirm.com NBT BANCORP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richey et al., v. NBT Bancorp Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a brief extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's amended motion to certify class and appoint class counsel and to provide the Defendant's expert disclosure. The Defendant requests a seven (7) day extension, up to and including May 1, 2026. Additional time will allow the Defendant to complete its review and prepare a thorough and accurate submission that will aid the Court in resolving the issues presented. Separately, counsel for the Defendant and the Plaintiffs have agreed to an indefinite extension of the Defendant's expert disclosure pending mediation. The parties have met and conferred and believe that extending the expert disclosure deadline until after mediation would promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs. Accordingly, the Defendant requests that the expert disclosure deadline be extended to 30 days following the completion of mediation, but no later than Aug. 1, 2026, in the event mediation does not occur or is not completed by that time. The Defendant is a financial holding company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z5Avfl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brian E. Whiteley, Esq. DARCLAY DAMON LLP 160 Federal Street, Suite 1001 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 274-2903 Facsimile: (617) 722-6003 E-mail: bwhiteley@barclaydamon.com NEOGENOMICS INC: Goldenberg Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GOLDENBERG is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Daniel Goldenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NeoGenomics, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10314, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the company's public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. On Dec. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 5, 2024. On Mar. 13, 2026, Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The Plaintiff is denied leave to amend. The appellate case is styled as Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Case No. 26-945, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL GOLDENBERG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Corban S. Rhodes, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC 485 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Defendants-Appellees NEOGENOMICS, INC., et al. are represented by: Lara A. Flath, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 NESTLE PURINA: Class Settlement Prelim. Approval Bid Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMANUEL SALINAS, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, v. NESTLÉ PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01140-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thurston entered an order denying the Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is denied without prejudice.13 In conclusion, the Court has doubt as to the fairness of the settlement. The modified settlement language speaks in absolute when it is unclear whether the California claims indeed provide a higher award. Further, the modified language seemingly releases putative class members' right to sue for damages under the FLSA without an adequate opt-in procedure. The action is based on Defendant's alleged violations of federal and state wage-and-hour laws, resulting in the underpayment of wages and the failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods to hundreds of workers employed by Defendant in any non-exempt hourly or non-exempt salaried California job position at any time during Jan. 29, 2017 through Feb. 5, 2023. The Parties have resolved the claims of approximately 146 similarly situated non exempt employees, for a total non-reversionary settlement of $3,000,000.00. Based on the terms of the Settlement, Class Members will receive on average $13,000 each. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Settlement Class defined as: "all persons employed by the Defendant in any non-exempt hourly or non-exempt salaried California job position at any time during the time period from and including Jan. 29, 2017, through and including Feb. 5, 2023." Nestle produces and markets pet food, treats, and cat and dog litter. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SBP3gu at no extra charge.[CC] NESTLE WATERS: Patane Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING, HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S. SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER, DIANE BOGDAN, and PARESHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381-VDO (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following redefined proposed classes ("Proposed Class[es]") and subclasses ("Proposed Subclass[es]"): -- "All natural persons and entities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Nov. 5, 2003, and Dec. 30, 2022, and did not purchase or consume Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Jan. 1, 1996, and Nov. 5, 2003 (the "Post-2003 Purchaser Class")"; -- "All natural persons and entities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water between April 1, 2014, and Dec. 30, 2022, and purchased or consumed Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Jan. 1, 1996, and Nov. 5, 2003 (the "Post-2014 Purchaser Class")"; -- "All natural persons in the Post-2003 Purchaser Class in Massachusetts (the "Massachusetts Subclass")"; -- "All members of the Post-2003 Purchaser Class in New Hampshire (the "New Hampshire Subclass")"; -- "All members of the Post-2003 Purchaser Class in New Jersey (the "Post-2003 New Jersey Subclass")"; -- "All members of the Post-2014 Purchaser Class in New Jersey (the "Post-2014 New Jersey Subclass")"; -- "All natural persons in the Post-2003 Purchaser Class in New York who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Aug. 15, 2014, and Dec. 30, 2022 (the "Post-2003 New York Subclass")"; -- "All natural persons in the Post-2014 Purchaser Class in New York who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Aug. 15, 2014, and Dec. 30, 2022 (the "Post 2014 New York Subclass")"; -- "All natural persons in the Post-2014 Purchaser Class in Pennsylvania who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for personal, family or household purposes (the "Pennsylvania Subclass")"; -- "All members of the Post-2014 Purchaser Class in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for consumption directly from Nestlé through its ReadyRefresh business (previously known as Poland Spring Direct) (the "Post-2014 H&O Purchaser Subclass")"; -- "All members of the Post-2003 Purchaser Class in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for consumption directly from Nestlé through its ReadyRefresh business (previously known as Poland Spring Direct) (the "Post-2003 H&O Purchaser Subclass")"; and -- "All members of the Post-2003 Purchaser Class in New York who purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water for consumption directly from Nestlé through its ReadyRefresh business (previously known as Poland Spring Direct) between Aug. 15, 2013, and December 30, 2022 (the "New York H&O Purchaser Subclass")." In the alternative, if the Court declines to use the fact-discovery cut off of Dec. 30, 2022, as the end date of the class periods provided for above, the Plaintiffs propose an alternative class period end date for each of the above proposed classes and subclasses of Nov. 5, 2019. Nestle is a company that specializes in the production and distribution of bottled water products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BNMQjd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. Bryan Caforio, Esq. Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Esq. Max Straus, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com jcuevas@susmangodfrey.com mstraus@susmangodfrey.com - and - Alexander Schmidt, Esq. ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT, ESQ. Fairways Professional Plaza 5 Professional Circle, Suite 204 Colts Neck, NJ 07722 Telephone: (732) 226-0004 E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law - and - Steven Williams, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 250 W 55th Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 S. Main St., Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manuel Angel Calderon v. Network Infrastructure, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05442-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the Defendants' deadline to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants request that the briefing schedule established by the Court be extended in the manner set forth below. This extended briefing schedule would require the parties to promptly complete the briefing of the Plaintiff's class certification motion if mediation is not successful. -- The Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion to be extended from April 23, 2026 to June 3, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in further support of the class certification motion to be extended from May 7, 2026 to June 17, 2026. Network Infrastructure is a NY-based utility contracting company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bPI8kX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Edward Grimmett, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Telephone: (516) 681-1100 E-mail: egrimmett@kaufmandolowich.com NEW YORK: Bid for Class Certification Filing Due July 20 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights New York v. The State of New York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06965 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 30, 2017), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order that by July 20, 2026, counsel shall file their fully briefed motions for class certification and Daubert motion to strike plaintiff's expert's opinion and to preclude her testimony. Counsel may modify their agreed upon briefing schedule without court approval. Counsel shall file a letter notifying the Court of their modified agreed upon briefing schedule. Counsel shall follow J. Block's motion rules, specifically section 2(D) when filing their motions. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Ewing Suit Gets Prelim. Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement with the Defendant Symetra Life Insurance Company filed April 10, 2026. The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval of the Symetra settlement is met. The Court will enter a separate order to govern the notice period and set the date for the final approval hearing. The Court thoroughly analyzed the Plaintiffs' proposed class action claims against Symetra in the Class Certification Order and concluded that certain claims against Symetra met the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test. The Court adopts the same reasoning here and holds that the proposed settlement class will be able to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test and therefore the Court will be able to certify the class for purposes of the Symetra settlement. Having decided that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met, the Court finds that the Court will likely be able to certify the class for purposes of approving the settlement. This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a class of individuals defined as: "All persons residing in the United States who are participants in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan, all persons residing in the United States who are beneficiaries entitled to benefits as of Jan. 1, 2021, under the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan." The Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged tortfeasors. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SPNLDn at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Russ Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al., v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement with the Defendant Symetra Life Insurance Company filed April 10, 2026. The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval of the Symetra settlement is met. The Court will enter a separate order to govern the notice period and set the date for the final approval hearing. The Court thoroughly analyzed the Plaintiffs' proposed class action claims against Symetra in the Class Certification Order and concluded that certain claims against Symetra met the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test. The Court adopts the same reasoning here and holds that the proposed settlement class will be able to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test and therefore the Court will be able to certify the class for purposes of the Symetra settlement. Having decided that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met, the Court finds that the Court will likely be able to certify the class for purposes of approving the settlement. This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a class of individuals defined as: "All persons residing in the United States who are participants in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan, all persons residing in the United States who are beneficiaries entitled to benefits as of Jan. 1, 2021, under the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan." The Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged tortfeasors. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=140IlC at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Wade Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement with the Defendant Symetra Life Insurance Company filed April 10, 2026. The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval of the Symetra settlement is met. The Court will enter a separate order to govern the notice period and set the date for the final approval hearing. The Court thoroughly analyzed the Plaintiffs' proposed class action claims against Symetra in the Class Certification Order and concluded that certain claims against Symetra met the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test. The Court adopts the same reasoning here and holds that the proposed settlement class will be able to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance test and therefore the Court will be able to certify the class for purposes of the Symetra settlement. Having decided that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met, the Court finds that the Court will likely be able to certify the class for purposes of approving the settlement. This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a class of individuals defined as: "All persons residing in the United States who are participants in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan, all persons residing in the United States who are beneficiaries entitled to benefits as of Jan. 1, 2021, under the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan." The Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged tortfeasors. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oLbEvQ at no extra charge.[CC] NEWTON COUNTY SCHOOL: McCarthy Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MCCARTHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEWTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 1:26-cv-01685-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action pursuant to pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff relies upon the brief in support, the declarations of the Plaintiff McCarthy), and the declarations of Opt-In Plaintiffs Culbreth and Thomas. The Defendant is an above average, public school district. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1UCrgT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Herrington, Esq. Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. CALDWELL BRIDGERS & BENJAMIN, LLC 1425-A Dutch Valley Place NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 E-mail: bridgers@appliedlegalinsight.com herrington@appliedlegalinsight.com NINTENDO: Must Return Tariff-Related Overcharges, Hoffert Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY HOFFERT and PRASHANT SHARAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01360 (W.D. Wash., April 21, 2026) arises from Nintendo's retention of windfall profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the U.S. government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of the IEEPA. Those tariffs dramatically increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. Major U.S. importers including Nintendo responded by increasing prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of these tariffs. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices for consumer goods reflecting the economic burden of those tariffs, says the suit. The complaint asserts that Nintendo collected the tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing, while seeking refunds of the same tariff payments from the federal government. Unless restrained by the Court, Nintendo stands to recover the same tariff payments twice -- once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds. Allegedly, Nintendo has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related overcharges to the consumers who actually paid them. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Nintendo during the tariff period and who paid inflated prices reflecting Nintendo's pass-through of unlawful tariffs. Nintendo of America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo Co., Ltd., a Japanese company headquartered in Kyoto, Japan. NCL develops and designs electronic video game consoles, games, and accessories, including the Nintendo Switch, Nintendo Switch Lite, Nintendo Switch OLED consoles, and the Nintendo Switch 2 console.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Timothy Emery, Esq. Brook Garberding, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com emeryt@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Ave, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Nicole A. Maruzzi, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com NISSAN NORTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Elias Due Sept. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Elias, Kelly Wemer, James Gallina, Julie Gallina, Tesha Hall, Brian Lawson, and Montgomery Headley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00348 (M.D. Tenn.), the Court entered an order granting the motion to set discovery and class certification deadlines. On April 10, 2026, the Parties conferred and agreed to the following deadlines for the completion of discovery and the Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification: a. Deadline to complete fact discovery: Aug. 14, 2026 b. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification and serve any expert report(s) related to class certification: Sept. 18, 2026 c. Deadline for Defendant to depose the Plaintiffs' class certification expert witnesses: Oct. 26, 2026 d. Deadline for the Defendant to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, file Daubert motion(s), and serve related class certification expert report(s): Dec. 2, 2026 e. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to depose the Defendant's class certification expert witnesses: Jan. 8, 2027 f. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of motion for class certification, response(s) to the Defendant's Daubert motion(s), and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Feb. 15, 2027. Nissan operates in the automotive industry. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LiXLLe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Susan S. Lafferty, Esq. LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, INC. 1321 Murfreesboro Pike, Suite 521 Nashville, TN 37229 Telephone: (615) 878-1926 Facsimile: (615) 472-7852 E-mail: ssl@laffertylawtn.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. Vlad Hirnyk, Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com jmarkovits@lemberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brigid M. Carpenter, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. 1600 West End Avenue Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 726-7341 E-mail: bcarpenter@bakerdonelson.com - and - Peter J. Brennan, Esq. Elena M. Olivieri, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 E-mail: pbrennan@jenner.com eolivieri@jenner.com NISSAN NORTH: Loses Bid to Dismiss Wilson Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01042 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations. At this stage, the Court finds the allegations in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to establish that the Plaintiff has standing under Article III. If, however, the facts developed during discovery suggest otherwise, Defendant can raise standing at summary judgment. The motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing is denied. Although the Court has serious questions about the viability of Plaintiff’s proposed class definition, in part because it skirts close to the line of a fail-safe class, at this early stage, it is premature to strike the class allegations. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to strike class allegations is denied. The Plaintiff brings claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), against Nissan North America, Inc. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of himself and a putative class of the following: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom on Nissan North America, Inc.'s behalf Autoweb, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a person who made an inquiry to Defendants, (3) in connection with which Autoweb, Inc. used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from four years prior to the filing of this complaint through the date of class certification." The Defendant manufactures and sells vehicles and automotive parts. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lD3x8v at no extra charge.[CC] NORDSTROM INC: Cordero Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jose Cordero, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CU009708C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03621. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains eight causes of action, including for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy K. Todd, Esq. Riley B. Doyle, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Amy.Todd@jacksonlewis.com Riley.Doyle@jacksonlewis.com - and - Kelli M. Dreger, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Kelli.Dreger@jacksonlewis.com NORTH CAROLINA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Bid in DRNC Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DISABILITY RIGHTS NORTH CAROLINA, v. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and DEVDUTTA SANGVAI, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health And Human Services, Case No. 1:24-cv-00335-WO-JGM (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay consideration of motion for class certification pending pre-certification discovery. In the alternative, the Defendants request that the Court deny the motion for class certification with leave to allow it to be re-filed at the appropriate time following discovery. A stay is appropriate to allow the Defendants to take pre-certification discovery necessary to properly evaluate the class certification issues raised in the motion, specifically including whether the Plaintiffs can satisfy their burden of proof on the Rule 23(a) class action requirements. Without a stay, the Defendants will suffer unfair prejudice, the Court will not be presented with a full and adequate record by which to properly evaluate these important class certification issues, and the interests of justice will not be served. In contrast, a stay will not prejudice the Plaintiffs. The Department of Health and Human Services manages the delivery of health and human related services for all North Carolinians. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GmuBDC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael T. Wood, Esq. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 716-0186 Facsimile: (919) 716-6758 E-mail: MWood@ncdoj.gov NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Finn Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gina Finn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTH EAST MEDICAL SERVICES, Case No. CGC-26-635218 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03593. On March 25, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint ("CAC") against removing Defendant NEMS. The Plaintiff's CAC seeks damages, injunctive relief and equitable relief for Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200; Violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; Violation of the California Consumer Records Act; and Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. In her CAC, Plaintiff alleges that she is a patient of NEMS, and she seeks damages and relief arising from an October 19, 2025 data security incident that allegedly resulted in the unauthorized access to Plaintiff's personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") that she provided to NEMS to facilitate her healthcare treatment and services or as part of the process of obtaining healthcare treatment and services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 310.861.7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com - and - Jill H. Fertel, Esq. Ryan P. Slaven, Esq. Sarah K. Adams, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. Three Valley Square, Suite 305 512 E. Township Line Road Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: (610) 567-0700 Email: jfertel@c-wlaw.com rslaven@c-wlaw.com sadams@c-wlaw.com NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Williams Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as MARIAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. NORTH EAST MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. CGC-26-634548, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03307 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she is a patient of NEMS, and she seeks damages and relief arising from an October 19, 2025 data security incident that allegedly resulted in the unauthorized access to Plaintiff's personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") that she provided to NEMS to facilitate her healthcare treatment and services or as part of the process of obtaining healthcare treatment and services. North East Medical Services (NEMS) is a non-profit community health center serving the San Francisco Bay Area. The Defendant is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: 310-861-7797 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com - and - Jill H. Fertel, Esq. Ryan P. Slaven, Esq. Sarah K. Adams, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. Three Valley Square, Suite 305 512 E. Township Line Road Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (610) 567-0700 E-mail: jfertel@c-wlaw.com rslaven@c-wlaw.com sadams@c-wlaw.com NPAS SOLUTIONS LLC: Kline Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NPAS Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Lynda Kline, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00355-DJN (E.D. Va., April 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NPAS -- https://www.npasolutionsllc.com/ -- is an accounting firm specializing in financial management for nonprofits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com NUTRIEN LTD: Fillingim Sues Over Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Fillingim Farms, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nutrien Ltd; Nutrien Ag Solutions; CF Industries Holdings, Inc.; Koch Inc., f/k/a Koch Industries, LLC; Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, LLC; Koch Fertilizer Wever, LLC; Koch Fertilizer, LLC; Koch Agronomic Services, LLC; Yara International ASA; Yara North America, Inc.; and The Mosaic Co., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04214 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2026) arises out of Defendants' conspiracy to fix the prices of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers (collectively, "NPK Fertilizers") sold in the United States and its territories from January 1, 2021 to the present. The complaint relates that among the victims of the conspiracy are direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers from the Defendants, including agricultural retailers, fertilizer mixers, members of farming associations, farm and planting partnerships/companies, and individual farmers/growers. To implement their price-fixing conspiracy, the Defendants conspired to artificially inflate the price of NPK Fertilizers. The Defendants' unlawful agreement caused direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiff and the Class, to pay supra-competitive prices for NPK Fertilizers sold by Defendants in the United States and its territories from the period beginning no later than January 1, 2021 and running through the date on which the Class is certified (the "Class Period"), in violation of the Sherman Act, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks both monetary and injunctive relief for the Defendants' unlawful and ongoing agreement to fix the prices for NPK Fertilizers. Plaintiff Fillingim Farms, Inc. purchased NPK Fertilizer directly from one or more of the Defendants at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. Anthony M. Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com acarter@tostrudlaw.com - and - Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY. 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com NUTRIEN LTD: Red River Sues Over Fertilizer Products' Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------------- RED RIVER AG, LLC, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CANPOTEX LTD.; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE; and INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04304 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2026) seeks treble damages for Plaintiff's injuries, and those suffered by members of the proposed Class, resulting from Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, the Nutrien Defendants, the Mosaic Defendants, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., the Koch Defendants, the Yara Defendants, and Canpotex collectively dominate the production, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of Fertilizer Products throughout the United States. These Defendants control the three most widely used types of Fertilizer: Nitrogen, Potash, and Phosphate (collectively, "Fertilizers"), which are used both independently and in combination with other elements to create Fertilizer Products. Together, the Defendants control 82 percent of the Nitrogen Fertilizer market, 90 to 95 percent of the Potash Fertilizer market, and 91 percent of the Phosphate Fertilizer market in the United States. The Defendants have conspired to use their market power to artificially suppress supply of all three Fertilizers, which enabled them to artificially raise prices and reap supracompetitive profits. Beginning on or around January 1, 2020, the Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix prices above competitive levels and limit supply of Nitrogen, Potash, and Phosphate Fertilizers. The Plaintiff and members of the Class were thus forced to pay Defendants' artificially inflated prices for Fertilizer Products and have suffered injuries under the federal antitrust laws, says the suit. Plaintiff Red River Ag, LLC is a Minnesota limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plummer, Minnesota. The Plaintiff purchased Fertilizer Products at artificially inflated prices directly from one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period alleged in this complaint. Nutrien Ltd. is a Canadian fertilizer company based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Candice J. Enders, Esq. Jeremy Gradwohl, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com cenders@bergermontague.com jgradwohl@bergermontague.com - and - Richard D. Schwartz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 257-0255 E-mail: rschwartz@bergermontague.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com - and - Jessica Seigel, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Ave., Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 707-6801 E-mail: jseigel@bergermontague.com OFFICE DEPOT: McGonigle Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MCGONIGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80069-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of persons who received text messages from the Defendant without consent—in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's National Do Not Call Registry provision, 47 U.S.C. sections 227(c)(5) ("TCPA"). National Do Not Call Registry Class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) whose telephone numbers Office Depot (a) text messaged two or more times in a twelve-month period after reassignment; (b) were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than thirty days before the date of each text; and (c) were not used to send any inbound text messages to Defendant after reassignment; (d) from Jan. 17, 2021 through the date of class certification." The Plaintiff's claims arise from the same uniform course of conduct, rely on the same legal theory, and can be proven with common evidence applicable to all class members, this case is ideally suited for class treatment. Rule 23's requirements are readily satisfied, and class certification should be granted. The Plaintiff also requests the Court to appoint him as class representative and Kaufman P.A. as class counsel and establish a deadline for submitting a proposed notice plan. The Defendant is an office supply retailer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sma7NZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com ONESTOP COMMERCIAL: Ulloa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onestop Commercial & Building Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Ulloa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Onestop Commercial & Building Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003030 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Onestop Commercial & Building Services, Inc. -- https://www.onestopbuildingservices.com/ -- is a Northern California janitorial company serving the San Francisco Bay Area and surrounding Northern California regions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com OPAL CAMERA INC: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OPAL CAMERA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03356 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026), is brought against Defendant, for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its ecommerce Website, www.opalcamera.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive website in a manner compatible with screen-reading technology denied the Plaintiff equal access to the goods and services it provides to non-disabled customers. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to use her grant funds for their intended purpose and lost the opportunity to acquire the equipment necessary to launch her community-based initiative. The Plaintiff brings this civil action against the Defendant for its violations of Title III of the ADA, and related state and local laws. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to adopt and implement policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is permanently disabled due to legal blindness. Opal Camera, Inc. markets itself as a cutting-edge technology company offering AI-enhanced, professional-grade camera systems, including the Opal C1, the Opal Tadpole, and the Opal Composer software required to operate its devices.[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 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com OPERA EVENT: Orea Sues Over Illegal Sale of Digital Assets ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEX OREA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPERA EVENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; COMMUNITY FIRST GAMES, a business entity, form unknown; BRANDON BYRNE, an individual; ANDREW RINGLEIN, an individual; ERIK BRYANT, an individual; EDDIE TSAIO, an individual; and MATT ESPINOZA, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03194 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2026) challenges Defendants' orchestrated scheme to defraud Plaintiff and other retail investors through the sale of digital assets tied to a purportedly revolutionary blockchain technology platform called Communi3 in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants conceived, marketed, and sold a series of non-fungible tokens and promised a forthcoming cryptocurrency token, $SCI, using the trappings of a legitimate technology enterprise to conceal what was, from its inception, a mechanism for extracting capital from the investing public. However, the $SCI token was never launched. The exchange listing never materialized. The investors were left holding worthless digital assets while Defendants pocketed millions of dollars, asserts the suit. Between approximately March 2022 and late 2023, the Defendants sold multiple collections of NFTs on the Solana blockchain, including Communi3: Laboratories (priced at approximately $100,000 each), Communi3: Mad Scientists (5,001 NFTs at 2 SOL each), Adorable Assistants, and Rifters: Exiles (7,037 NFTs at 10 SOL each). In total, Defendants raised conservatively $6.5 million to $8 million or more in direct NFT mint proceeds alone, plus additional revenue from secondary market royalties and platform fees. The complaint further asserts that by early 2023, the project was effectively dead. Platform activity ceased. Discord communications slowed to a trickle and then stopped entirely. The promised exchange listing never occurred. No airdrop was ever distributed. The Defendants simply walked away, completing the final stage of their scheme: a liquidity extraction, colloquially known as a "rug pull," in which insiders monetize their positions by selling into or abandoning an artificially created market, leaving retail investors holding worthless assets. The collapse was not a market event. It was the inevitable culmination of a scheme that was designed from the outset to transfer wealth from retail investors to Defendants, alleges the suit. Opera Event, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Opera Event does business as "Communi3" and is the parent entity responsible for the development, marketing, and sale of the Communi3 platform and all associated digital assets, including the Mad Scientists, Laboratories, Adorable Assistants, and related NFT collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 1 World Trade Center, 84th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 762-1080 E-mail: max@burwick.law ORRICK HERRINGTON: Casillas Sues Over Unprotected Private Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CASILLAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03493 (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former employees, current and former clients, and litigants involved in litigation where Defendant represented a party. On or about January 20, 2026, the Defendant was hacked in the data breach. However, Defendant has not begun notifying the class about the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all individuals residing in the United States whose private information was compromised in the said data breach. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP provides legal services in areas like mergers & acquisitions, complex litigation, financial services regulation, cyber/privacy, fintech, and regulatory compliance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market St., Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com PAPA JOHN'S: Gershzon et al. Sue Over Private Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------- MIKHAIL GERSHZON, BIANCA JOHNSTON, and DANIEL WINE, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03504 (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2026) seeks to challenge Defendant's violations of consumer privacy and breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. Like most internet websites, the Defendant designed its website to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that enable those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data. Unlike many websites, however, Defendant affirmatively represented that users could browse its website without being tracked, followed, or targeted by third-party data brokers and advertisers. The Defendant's representations, however, were false. In truth, Defendant did not abide by Plaintiffs' or other users' wishes. Instead, the Defendant caused the third parties' tracking cookies to be placed on Website users' browsers and devices and/or transmitted to the third parties along with user data, says the suit. Headquartered in Louisville, KY, Papa John's International, Inc. operates as a pizza restaurant chain. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com PARK MY FLEET: Scheduling Conference in McKnight Set for May 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIAVANNI MCKNIGHT, v. PARK MY FLEET LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00368-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order setting a scheduling conference for May 28, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., in order to set a scheduling order in the case between the Plaintiff and Defendant only, including setting a trial date. A joint scheduling report, carefully prepared and executed by all parties, shall be filed one (1) full week prior to the scheduling conference. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint—stylized as a putative class action—bringing wage and hour claims, as well as discrimination claims. Pertinent here, the Court set the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification for April 20, 2026. That date has passed, and the Plaintiff has not filed a motion for class certification nor a motion or stipulation for a subsequent modification of the scheduling order. Therefore, it appears that the Plaintiff has forfeited proceeding as a putative class. The Defendant provides fully staffed and gated mobility hubs, supporting fleets with full life cycle managed services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JQqrNk at no extra charge.[CC] PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS and LYNNE KAWAMINAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs leave to file under seal the (a) unredacted version of the motion for class certification and the (b) aforementioned exhibits. Exhibit B is a report from the Plaintiffs' expert, Nathan Good, who relies on material produced and marked as confidential, including presentations and email correspondences discussing the way in which PetMeds has configured its website. Exhibit E reflects the way in which PetMeds manages tracking technologies, including those unrelated to this litigation. PetMeds has marked this document as confidential. Exhibit G, H, I, J, K are documents that reflect the source code for the tracking technologies that PetMeds has integrated into website, including the configurations for those pieces of JavaScript. PetMeds has marked these documents as confidential. The redacted version of the motion for class certification contains excerpts that are drawn from the above exhibits. On Nov. 3, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part PetMeds' motion for a stipulated protective order. PetMeds is a direct-to-consumer pet pharmacy and online provider of prescription and non prescription medications. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VgagJH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYER LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: creilly@mrpfirm.com mpineiro@mrpfirm.com PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS and LYNNE KAWAMINAMI, , individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. Through direct evidence, the Plaintiffs and class members have adequately established four allegations that collectively support their standing to bring claims under the Wiretap Act. The Plaintiffs have alleged and established that PetMeds engaged in a concerted and systemic pattern of assisting third parties with eavesdropping and intercepting the contents of the Plaintiffs' and class members' confidential communications. Because this conduct extends across individuals who purchased veterinary medications on PetMeds' website, Plaintiffs seek to appoint their attorneys as class counsel and certify the following classes: Nationwide Class: "All individuals in the United States who purchased prescription medication through 1800petmeds.com from Oct. 25, 2021, to April 10, 2025." Meta Nationwide Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who: 1) purchased prescription medication through 1800petmeds.com from Oct. 21, 2021 to April 10, 2025; 2) completed the purchase using a first name, last name, and email address that is associated with a Facebook account; and 3) appears in Meta's records with a purchase event for a Content ID associated with prescription medication." California Class: "All individuals who purchased prescription mediation through 1800petmeds.com with a shipping address in California from Oct. 21, 2021, to April 10, 2025." Meta California Subclass: "All individuals who: 1) purchased prescription medication through 1800petmeds.com with a shipping address in California from Oct. 21, 2021 to April 10, 2025; 2) completed the purchase using a first name, last name, and email address that is associated with a Facebook account; and 3) appears in Meta's records with a purchase event for a Content ID associated with prescription medication." PetMeds is a direct-to-consumer pet pharmacy and online provider of prescription and non prescription medications. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Gm9zs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYER LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: creilly@mrpfirm.com mpineiro@mrpfirm.com PGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint Lodged -------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 22, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2026, that it and its affiate Pacific Gas and Electric Company is facing charges with regards to its representations with the SEC. On February 22, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed in the District Court, entitled "York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al.," naming as defendants certain former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor it affiliiate was named as a defendant in that complaint. The filing explained that the York County Action asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation's vegetation management and wildfire safety measures, and that on May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with the PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in previously filed actions and names as defendants certain former officers and directors and the underwriters, and that while PG&E Corporation and the Pacific Gas and Utility are also named as defendants, the claims against PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas may only be pursued in Bankruptcy Court. The disclosure added that on October 24, 2024, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, that on September 30, 2025, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss with leave to amend, that on November 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated class action complaint, and that on December 22, 2025, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. It also referenced wildfire-related class action and wildfire-related class action member proceedings in connection with these matters. PG&E Corp, through its subsidiary Pacific Gas and Electric Co., is a regulated utility that provides natural gas and electricity to millions of customers in northern and central California. The company operates extensive electric transmission and distribution networks and gas infrastructure across its service territory. PHH MORTGAGE: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Graham -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELANA GRAHAM, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AMERICA SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSURANT INC. NEWREZ LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00432-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Beetlestone entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by Oct. 13, 2026. 2. Any expert reports relating to class certification are due no later than Nov. 12, 2026. Any rebuttal reports relating to class certification are due no later than Dec. 3, 2026. 3. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses relating to class certification shall be completed by Dec. 31, 2026. 4. Any motions for class certification and/or Daubert motions regarding expert witnesses relating to class certification shall be filed and served on or before Feb. 1, 2027. Any oppositions to such motions shall be filed and served on or before March 1, 2027. Any reply in support of such motions shall be filed and served on or before March 22, 2027. PHH is a non-bank residential mortgage servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IFLZ3Q at no extra charge.[CC] PINNACLE DEVELOPMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Alfaro Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC A. ALFARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04289 (D.N.J., April 22, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members that Defendant collected, stored, and maintained within its information network. Between August 15, 2025 and September 8, 2025, an unauthorized third-party actor gained access to the email account of a Pinnacle employee and obtained the PII of an undetermined number of individuals. The Defendant did not discover the data breach until January 28, 2026 -- more than four months after the intrusion concluded -- reflecting a prolonged failure of Defendant's monitoring, detection, and incident response capabilities. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to safeguard the PII entrusted to its care; failing to detect, prevent, and timely disclose the Data Breach; and failing to adhere to applicable, required, and industry-standard protocols governing the collection, storage, encryption, and protection of sensitive personal data, including but not limited to the basic email security controls that would have prevented or limited the compromise at issue. As a direct and proximate result of the data breach, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was accessed and exfiltrated by unauthorized third parties who seek to profit from that information by committing identity theft, financial fraud, tax fraud, and other crimes against Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. Pinnacle Development Group, Inc. is a New Jersey-based design-build, general contracting, and real estate development firm that provides residential and commercial construction, custom home building, remodeling, and related services throughout New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. FURIA LAW LLC 350 Springfield Avenue, Suite 200 Summit, NJ 07901 Telephone: (646) 830-1915 E-mail: furiap@furiafirm.com PIO PIO: Court Conditionally Certifies "Lopez" FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Abraham Lopez, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Pio Pio NYC, Inc. et al., Defendants, 25-CV-3998 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a FLSA collective action and approved the proposed notice and consent to sue form, subject to modifications, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 20, 2026. Seven Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against a chain of Peruvian restaurants operating under the trade name Pio Pio, on behalf of themselves and all former and current employees employed by Defendant within six years prior to filing the Complaint. The Court found that Plaintiffs carried their low burden of making a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in Plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. Ten affidavits from front- and back-of-house employees attested to common unlawful practices across six Pio Pio locations, and over twenty additional similarly affected employees were identified. The Court further found the restaurants to be a single, integrated enterprise, sharing names, logos, menu selections, principals, liquor licenses, websites, social media presences, employees, and supplies. As to the approved notice, the Court ruled as follows: Plaintiffs' categorical request for equitable tolling was denied without prejudice to individualized applications. Notice was limited to employees employed during the three-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint, not the six-year period requested. Defendant was directed to post notices in conspicuous non-public locations in both English and Spanish, and the notice must include defense counsel's contact information. Defendant must produce covered employee data in Excel format within 14 days of the Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iVqhQk from PacerMonitor.com Defendants El Pillo Inc., Ines Yallico, Augusto Yallico, Sipan Restaurant of New York Inc., Pollos a la Brasa Pio, Pio, Inc., Pio-Pio Restaurant, Inc., Pio Pio Ocho Inc., Pio Pio NYC, Inc., Pio Pio Express Inc., Pio Pio 85 Inc., Pio Pio 34 Inc., and Mochica Group Corp. are represented by: Amy Margaret Monahan, Esq. L'ABBATE BALKAN COLAVITA & CONTINI Email: amonahan@lbcclaw.com Plaintiffs Rigoberto Perez, Alex Perez, Abraham Lopez, Eugenio Reyes Valdez, Celso Ibanez, and Donal Barrios are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC Email: cklee@leelitigation.com PIO PIO: Lopez Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABRAHAM LOPEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, et al., V. PIO PIO NYC, INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03998-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Furman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and for approval of notice and a "consent to sue" form. The Plaintiffs have carried their "low" burden at this stage of making a "modest factual showing" that they and the "potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." The Defendants do not dispute that the restaurants in question function as a single, integrated enterprise. In any event, Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated at this stage that the restaurants are operated, and should be treated, as a unified entity. The Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves and all former and current employees who were employed by Defendants within six years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Pio is a Peruvian restaurant group in New York City. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vBXjht at no extra charge.[CC] POST CONSUMER BRANDS: Panossian Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Veronica Panossian, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, d/b/a Nature's Recipe, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV09672 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04486. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief from Post Consumer Brands, asserting the following causes of action: violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Phone: (213) 615-1700 Email: SObi@winston.com - and - Brandon W. Annette, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Phone: (213) 615-1824 Email: BAnnette@winston.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Continued to August 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cherkin, et al v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02706 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 6, 2024), the Court entered an order that the hearings on the parties' motions for class certification and summary judgment are continued until August 13, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The remaining deadlines in the amended scheduling order are stayed pending further order. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. PowerSchool is a provider of cloud-based software for the K-12 education market.[CC] PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Rodriguez Seeks Leave to File Reply ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01086-SKC-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification in excess of the 10-page limit prescribed by the District Court of Colorado's Uniform Civil Practice Standards. The Defendant's opposition raises numerous arguments concerning the Rule 23 requirements for class certification, including relating to commonality, predominance, typicality, adequacy, and superiority. The complexity of these issues, combined with the factual record of this matter, requires additional pages to adequately respond to the Defendant's arguments raised in opposition. The Plaintiff does seek to burden the Court with unnecessarily voluminous briefing. Rather, the modest increase of five (5) additional pages will permit the Plaintiff to fully and efficiently address the arguments raised in the Defendant's Opposition without sacrificing clarity or completeness. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order granting Plaintiff leave to file a Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification of up to 15 pages in length. Progressive provides insurances services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zcMA2U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501)-312-8500 Facsimile: (501)-312-8505 E-mail: llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Edwin E. Elliot, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 North East 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305)-479-2299 Facsimile: (786)-623-0915 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Randall K. Fuicelli, Esq. FUICELLI & LEE PC 1731 Gilpin Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303)-355-7202 Facsimile: (303)-355-720 E-mail: keith@coloradoinjurylaw.com RCI HOSPITALITY: Galica Sues Over Unlawfully Kept Tips and Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mariia Galica, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC. (d/b/a Baby Dolls Dallas and a/k/a Baby Dolls Topless Saloons, Inc.), Case No. 3:26-cv-01344-E (N.D. Tex., April 26, 2026), is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively "FLSA"), seeking all damages, including unlawfully kept and/or shared tips, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff any wages for hours she worked during seven-day workweeks for the Defendant in violation of the FLSA's minimum wage provision. Instead, the Plaintiff received tip, and at times, something the Defendant called Funny Money. The Defendant required the Plaintiff to share her tips with staff who were not customarily and regularly tipped employees in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant kept tips earned by the Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant required the Plaintiff to kick back money each shift to Defendant as a "house fee" in violation of the FLSA. If the Plaintiff was unable to work a full eight hour scheduled shift for the Defendant, the Defendant required her to kick back $8.00 for every 30 minutes of such shift she was unable to work in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Baby Dolls as a dancer from April 25, 2024 to March 8, 2026. The Defendant operates numerous gentlemen's/strip clubs including Baby Dolls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com REDFIN CORP: Gallardo Suit Alleges Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- BILJANA GALLARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00983 (C.D. Cal., April 24. 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating several state and federal video and financial privacy laws including the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the California Invasion Of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant disclosed consumers' private video consumption history, along with their mortgage loan application answers, to Meta Platforms, Inc. and TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC without their consent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a nationwide class and a California subclass to halt Redfin's unlawful surveillance practices and to recover statutory damages, injunctive relief, and other appropriate remedies. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Redfin Corporation owns and operates www.redfin.com, an online real estate platform that hosts individual property listing pages and interactive pre-qualification mortgage applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com REDLINE CAPITAL: Bentley Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Justin Bentley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, V. Redline Capital, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00319-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file his motion for class certification by 30 days, from April 27, 2026, to May 27, 2026. The Plaintiff has been diligently prosecuting this action and has been actively engaged in discovery and preparation of his class certification motion. However, despite the Plaintiff's diligence, additional time is necessary to complete critical discovery and finalize expert analysis essential to the motion. A brief extension will not prejudice the Defendant. The requested 30-day extension will not impact any other deadlines set forth in the Court's scheduling order, including the deadlines for expert disclosures, completion of discovery, or dispositive motions, and the current case schedule leaves ample time before the close of discovery on Aug. 12, 2026, and the dispositive motion deadline on Aug. 27, 2026. Granting this motion will facilitate a more complete presentation of the issues before the Court and conserve judicial resources. The Plaintiff has attempted to confer with the Defendant multiple times on this extension but has not heard back. The Defendant specializes in providing fast and flexible funding solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BEgnsp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com REGAL CLAIM: Faces Molloy Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- JASON MOLLOY and RUEL TANEGA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REGAL CLAIM SERVICES OF NEW YORK, LLC and REGAL CLAIM SERVICES, LLC d/b/a RC SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03120 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2026) arises from the Defendants' engagement in a common, willful, and deliberate policy and practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that Defendants' violated the state and federal laws by denying Plaintiff and other employees payment for all hours worked, including overtime compensation and failing to timely pay their wages and issue wage notices and wage statements that do not reflect their hourly rate of pay, overtime rate, or actual hours worked. Plaintiff Molloy was employed by Regal as an hourly investigator from approximately January 2020 until approximately March 2023. Regal Claim Services of New York, LLC provides claims investigation and surveillance services to commercial insurance companies in 18 U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: LaDonna Lusher, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Camp Files Suit in D. Kansas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc. The case is styled as Leslie Camp, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-01106 (D. Kan., April 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc. ("RMCW") is one of the largest Pizza Hut franchisees in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Murchison Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rheem Manufacturing Company. The case is styled as Justin Murchison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rheem Manufacturing Company, Case No. 2:26-cv-02061-DCF (W.D. Ark., April 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Rheem Manufacturing Company -- https://www.rheem.com/ -- is a privately held manufacturer that produces residential and commercial heating, cooling, water heating, pool & spa heating and commercial refrigeration products and solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Duran Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 247-6267 Email: chris@jefirm.com RHOBACK INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rhoback, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02261 (D. Minn., April 16, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.rhoback.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its website fail to ensure its website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities, including Plaintiff, says the suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. Rhoback, Inc. operates the website that offers activewear apparel for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, polos, hoodies, q-zips, jackets, outerwear, joggers, shorts, swim trunks, dresses, skorts, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ROBERT BOSCH: Conspires to Fix HVAC Equipment Prices, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Precision Plumbing, Electric, Heating & Cooling Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, JC RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC, JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING NORTH AMERICA LLC, TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TRANE U.S. INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US, CARRIER GLOBAL CORP., VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, THERMALNETICS, LLC, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL, INC., LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., HEAT TRANSFER PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC, AAON, INC., a Nevada Corporation, AAON, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC., and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11316-SKD-EAS (E.D. Mich, April 21, 2026) is a civil antitrust action brought by the Plaintiff under the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, on behalf of itself and on behalf of a proposed Class of all persons and entities who directly purchased heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment manufactured by the Defendants in the United States beginning at least as early as January 1, 2020 through the present. According to the complaint, since at least 2020, the Defendants have used the global COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to fix prices of HVAC equipment. Through a series of frequent and repeated secret meetings, information sharing, communications, and public signaling, the Defendants drove the prices of HVAC Equipment to historic levels. Additionally, the Defendants used two key organizations to facilitate their conspiracy. First, Defendants used the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, a trade association for the HVAC industry they largely control, to implement extensive sharing of information available only to AHRI members who also agreed to share their own data with their competitors. Second, Defendants used a niche HVAC industry publication -- Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News -- to each announce their price increases to and provide commentary on their pricing and supply plans, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of HVAC Equipment in the United States. The Defendants' anticompetitive actions widened the spread between the price that they pay to manufacture HVAC Equipment and the price at which they sold HVAC Equipment. Robert Bosch LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Bosch GmbH and serves as the corporate headquarters for North America. The Company manufactures and markets HVAC Equipment under several different brands and product lines, including Bosch, York, Champion, Coleman IVT, Luxaire, Hitachi, TempMaster, Guardian, and others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Shea, Esq. Ashley D. Shea, Esq. SHEA LAW, PLLC 26100 American Dr., 2nd Floor Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone: (248) 354-0224 E-mail: david.shea@shealaw.com ashley.shea@shealaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. Gabrielle M. Kolb, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com gkolb@gustafsongluek.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 E-mail: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com kkfreier@hechtpartners.com ROCKFORCE LLC: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rockforce, LLC f/k/a Rock Labor, LLC, and Rockforce Workforce, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01075-KMN (M.D. Pa., April 24, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for Defendants. However, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and one half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each workweek. The Defendants treat the Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee and pay him overtime for scheduled hours of work over forty in a given workweek. However, the Defendants also maintain a policy or practice of requiring the Plaintiff, and workers like him, to report for and begin work thirty minutes prior to their scheduled shift. The Defendants do not compensate the Plaintiff and other stagehands for these thirty minutes. However, if stagehands like the Plaintiff do not report early and begin performing duties, the Defendants do not permit them to work, and may prohibit them from working for the company for a period of 30 days. In this way, the Defendants extract an extra thirty minutes of work from their stagehand employees each shift without pay. Given the Plaintiff has witnessed that the Defendant's pay policies and/or practices are not personal to him, the Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants who, like the Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a stagehand. The Defendants operate a staffing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com ROEHL TRANSPORT: Conditional Class Cert. Extended to May 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris, Rachelle v. Roehl Transport, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00227 (W.D. Wisc., Filed March 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that The deadline to move for conditional class certification is extended to May 15, 2026. The Plaintiff has filed a proposed class action, alleging that defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices, contracted in restraint of trade, and imposed an unlawful penalty. Plaintiff is asserting Wisconsin state-law claims only, which means that at least one member of the proposed class must be a citizen of a different state from defendant, and the amount in controversy must be more than $5,000,000. 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). The court of appeals has interpreted section 1332(d) as requiring the proponent of jurisdiction to tell a "plausible story about how the amount in controversy exceed[s] the statutory minimum." Ware v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. , 6 F.4th 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2021). The complaint contains only conclusory allegations about jurisdiction, specifically as to the amount in controversy. On or before May 1, 2026, plaintiff is ordered to file a supplement to the complaint that complies with circuit law on section 1332(d) and specifically explains how the allegations satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. If plaintiff does not respond by then or if the response does not adequately allege the jurisdictional requirements, the court will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The nature of suit states Diversity-Negotiable Instrument. Roehl is a Wisconsin-based trucking company.[CC] ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Orgera v. Royalton on the Greens, LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00590-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a one (1) week extension of time to file the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, such that -- The Plaintiff's motion deadline would be extended from April 20 to April 27, 2026; –- The Defendants' opposition deadline would be extended from May 4 to May 11, 2026; and -- The Plaintiff's reply deadline would be extended from May 15 to May 22, 2026. This extension will allow counsel to finalize certain affidavits relevant to this motion. Defendants have consented and stipulated to this extension. This is the first request for an extension of time to move for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ASf0K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary C. Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 123 5th Avenue, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (646) 661-5694 E-mail: znaidich@naidichlaw.com RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Rodriguez Balks at Diversion of Public Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY; RUTGERS BOARD OF GOVERNORS; RUTGERS BOARD OF TRUSTEES; AND WILLIAM F. TATE, IV, PRESIDENT OF RUTGERS, Defendants, Case No. MID-L-002107-26 (N.S. Super., March 31, 2026) is a class brought by the Plaintiff action against the Defendants seeking judicial intervention to halt the ongoing waste and unlawful diversion of public funds by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in connection with its intercollegiate athletics program. According to the complaint, Rutgers is not a private athletic enterprise but a public instrumentality of the State of New Jersey, created by statute and supported by taxpayer funds. Despite this public status, Rutgers has permitted its athletics department to accumulate over $500 million in operating deficits since joining the Big Ten Conference, a collegiate athletic conference in the United States, in 2014. Allegedly, these losses have been financed through a combination of taxpayer-supported appropriations, transfers from the University's operating budget, and mandatory student fees. The cumulative deficit represents one of the largest sustained athletic losses of any public university in the United States. This constitutes a systemic misuse of public resources undertaken without meaningful oversight, without legislative authorization, and without a credible plan for fiscal sustainability. Rutgers' leadership has violated its fiduciary obligations by permitting a decade of unchecked athletic deficits, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Rodriguez is a resident and taxpayer of the State of New Jersey. He is a graduate of Rutgers University. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, commonly referred to as Rutgers University or simply Rutgers, is a large public land-grant research university consisting of three campuses in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com - and - Barry R. Eichen, Esq. EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW, LLP 40 Ethel Road Edison, NJ 08817 Telephone: (732) 641-6112 E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com S&P GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Investment Losses Suit in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from an investment losses class suit in Australia. A class action lawsuit was filed in Australia on August 7, 2020 against the Company and a subsidiary of the Company. The lawsuit relates to alleged investment losses in collateralized debt obligations rated by Ratings prior to the financial crisis between 2005 and 2007, and the Company can provide no assurance that it will not be obligated to pay significant amounts in order to resolve the lawsuit on terms deemed acceptable. S&P Global Inc. is a leading provider of credit ratings, benchmarks, analytics and data for the global capital and commodities markets. The Company offers a range of financial information and intelligence through its Ratings, Market Intelligence, Commodity Insights, Indices and Mobility segments. SAIA INC: Joint Status Report Due May 26 ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MILLS, v. SAIA INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-05033-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, discovery, depositions and early settlement: The Court sets the following initial case scheduling deadlines: Deadline for FRCP 26(f) conference: May 12, 2026 Initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): May 19, 2026 Combined joint status report and discovery plan as required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): May 26, 2026 All counsel and any pro se parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with a combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan (the "Report") by May 26, 2026. All discovery matters should be resolved by agreement if possible. If a ruling is needed on any discovery question, and counsel wish to avoid the time and expense of a written motion, they may request an expedited ruling through a telephone conference call to the Court at (253) 882−3850. If settlement is achieved, counsel shall immediately notify the Courtroom Deputy at mary_trent@wawd.uscourts.gov The Defendant is an American less than truckload trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqgp1l at no extra charge.[CC] SAINT FRANCIS: Faces Wilson Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAMINTA WILSON, individually, on behalf of the Saint Francis Health System, Inc. 401(K) Savings Plan, on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH SYSTEM RETIREMENT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00213-CDL (N.D. Okla., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence, breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and breach of co-fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the Saint Francis Health System, Inc. 401(K) Savings Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining higher cost investment options which materially reduced Plan participants' retirement funds as compared to readily available alternatives. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries suffered financial losses. Saint Francis Health System, Inc. is a not-for-profit health system based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Alex J. Ephraim, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com aje@federmanlaw.com - and - Abigail M. Cody, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: acody@milberg.com SERENE GARDENS: Jolly Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Notice ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANAE JOLLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SERENE GARDENS OF STERLING HEIGHTS LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:25-cv-11364-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Permitting the Plaintiff to send notice to the proposed FLSA Collective; (2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative FLSA Collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former Caregivers, Med Techs, and Lead Supervisors who worked for Serene Gardens of Sterling Heights LLC during the past three years and were paid bonuses and/or any other compensation subject to the FLSA "regular rate" calculation." (the "FLSA Collective"). (4) Appointing the undersigned as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. The Plaintiff Janae Jolly worked for the Defendant as a Care-Providing Hourly Employee from January to April 2024 and was most recently paid a base hourly rate of $15.00. The Defendant is an assisted living and memory care facility located in Sterling Heights, Michigan. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RkmX0E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ,P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com SHIFTSMART INC: Lucania Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA LUCANIA, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SHIFTSMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01248 (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2026) is an action against the Defendant to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week, however, despite working up to 45 hours, the Plaintiff was not paid for every hour worked, and she was not compensated for overtime hours as mandated by law. The Defendant also willfully failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time stocking employee from January of 2026, to the present, or approximately 15 weeks. Shiftsmart, Inc. is a technology-driven labor marketplace and workforce management platform.[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 SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Herrick Seeks Rule 24 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA HERRICK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SHUTTERSTOCK, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03191-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for certification of the following Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All owners of works registered with the United States Copyright Office who submitted a takedown notice to Shutterstock seeking removal of such works from Shutterstock's platform during the period April 17, 2020 through the present, and where at least one license was sold by Shutterstock for a work prior to the takedown notice." Excluded from the Class are Shutterstock, Inc., its officers, directors, and employees, and their immediate families, and any copyright owner who received payment from Shutterstock resolving claims for the Work at issue. The Plaintiff also requests that she be appointed by the Court as the Class representative and Cera LLP, Duncan Firm P.A. and Hoben Law be appointed as Class Counsel. Shutterstock is a media technology company that provides social networking platforms. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BJV9Kg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas C. Bright, Esq. Solomon B. Cera, Esq. CERA LLP 50 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 977-2229 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: tbright@cerallp.com scera@cerallp.com SIMON PROPERTY: Linder Balks at Unfair Use of Surveillance Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELZY L. LINDER and GREGORY HOFFERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV007030 (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 19, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated individuals, whose vehicles were captured by automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems at Simon's California properties during the class period, without the notice, disclosure, or consent required by the California Code of Civil Procedure. According to the complaint, Defendant Simon Property owns and operates more than 150 shopping centers in 37 states including multiple high-traffic malls in California and has installed ALPR cameras, primarily through its ALPR vendor Flock Group, Inc. at the entrances and parking lots of its California properties, including Folsom Premium Outlets in Folsom, California. The Defendant made such installation without conspicuously disclosing to Plaintiffs and other shoppers that their vehicle data was being captured and shared with law enforcement, and without implementing the security procedures required by California law. Simon's ALPR feeds at its California properties flow into a national ALPR network that collects more than 20 billion license plate reads per month, accessible to law enforcement agencies across the U.S., including federal agencies, says the suit. Simon Property Group, Inc. is the largest owner of shopping malls in the United States, operating as a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 E-mail: hlopez@milberg.com SLAUSON EXTRASPACE: Standing Order Entered in Ingraham Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK INGRAHAM, v. 700 E SLAUSON EXTRASPACE STORAGE, Case No. 2:26-cv-04248-WLH-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered a standing order as follows: Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was removed from state court, the defendant that removed the case must serve this Order on all other parties. Only individuals may represent themselves. A corporation or other entity must be represented by counsel. The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lALHXc at no extra charge.[CC] SONOS INC: Cesario Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- DARREN CESARIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONOS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03385 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2026), arises from Defendant's failure to ensure that its website is accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals such as Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has attempted to access Defendant's website using screen-reading technology in order to evaluate and purchase the Sonos Ace, compare speaker sets, review technical specifications, and determine compatibility with his intended use. However, he was unable to acquire the equipment necessary for his intended use and was excluded from equal participation in Defendant's online marketplace. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Civil Rights Law. Sonos, Inc. owns, operates, and controls the commercial website www.sonos.com, through which it markets, displays, and sells premium audio equipment--including the Sonos Ace, Sonos Beam Set, Sonos Era 300, and related accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLP 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com SPROUT ORGANICS: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPROUT ORGANICS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03305 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.sproutorganics.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Blueberry & Apple Organic Soft Baked Snacks from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the 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. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Sprout Organics Inc. operates the website that offers organic foods and snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SPROUT ORGANICS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPROUT ORGANICS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03240 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.sproutorganics.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Blueberry & Apple Organic Soft Baked Snacks from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the 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. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Sprout Organics Inc. operates the website that offers organic foods and snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 ST. LOUIS, MN: Faces Dearn Suit Over Unlawful Surveillance Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------------ Simon P. Dearn, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals Plaintiffs v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00469 (E.D. Mo., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights class action challenging the City of St. Louis's systematic and suspicionless surveillance of residential properties through a covert network of cameras installed throughout the City's alleyways. Without warrants, without notice, and without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, the City has allegedly deployed discreet cameras that record and monitor the yards, gates, driveways, and movements of citizens on and around their own residential properties. The City uses this surveillance footage to issue citations and prosecute residents for minor ordinance violations, including without limitation violations relating to dumpster use and bulk waste, while flouting the procedural protections its own ordinances require. In doing so, the City has violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the privacy protections of the Missouri Constitution, and engaged in unconstitutional general warrant searches of its own residents, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated residents of the City of St. Louis who have been subjected to this covert and unlawful surveillance. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief compelling the removal of all alley-mounted cameras trained on residential properties, as well as declaratory relief, compensatory and statutory damages, and all other relief to which Plaintiff and the Class are entitled. City of St. Louis is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alicia I. Dearn, Esq. 4428 Louisiana Ave St. Louis, MO 63111 Telephone: (314) 887-1100 E-mail: Notices@DearnLaw.com SUN BUM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUN BUM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03303 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.sunbum.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 9, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Pair-A-Dice Air Freshener from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Sun Bum LLC operates the website that offers sun care products and auto fresheners.[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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal TANISHA SYSTEMS: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------- JORGE SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TANISHA SYSTEMS, INC., L&T TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LIMITED, L&T TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03909 (D.N.J., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages due, and retaliation. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly employee in Illinois from approximately November 2025 through approximately January 2026. Tanisha Systems, Inc. is an information technology service company, with its principal office in Iselin, New Jersey. L&T Technology Services Limited is a multinational technology company, with its principal office in Edison, New Jersey. L&T Technology Services LLC is a multinational technology company, with its principal office in Edison, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com TAQUERIA SABOR: Urbina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Urbina, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TAQUERIA SABOR MIXTECA LLC (d/b/a TAQUERIA SABOR MIXTECA), and REINA VILLAREAL, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:26-cv-04556 (D.N.J., April 25, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, treble damages and for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' willful and intentional violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (the "NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (the "NJWPL"), as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft Act of 2019 (the "NJWTA"). Throughout her employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work 66 hours per week with no overtime premium, no itemized wage statements, no notice of pay rate, and no payroll records of any kind. The Defendants also paid Plaintiff no overtime premium for the 26 hours per week that she worked in excess of 40. The Defendants knew or acted in reckless disregard of the requirements of the FLSA, the NJWHL, and the NJWPL, including without limitation the obligations to pay the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, to pay overtime at one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked over 40 per week, to maintain accurate records of hours and wages, and to furnish wage statements and wage-rate notices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a cook and food preparer at a Mexican restaurant owned and operated by Defendants. The Defendant Taqueria Sabor Mixteca LLC is a domestic limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 832-1000 Email: ls@stillmanlegalpc.com TEMPUS AI: Fails to Secure Genetic Information, Farrier Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MARION FARRIER, RACHEL HARKNESS, LISA NEUMANN, ROSEMARY O'HARA, MICHELE PASCOE, ARIANN TAGLIOLI, CHERYL TERRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEMPUS AI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04246 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant to recover damages, injunctive relief, and other legal and equitable remedies to redress Tempus AI's unauthorized collection and disclosure of Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's genetic testing results and information derived from genetic testing, which Tempus AI compelled Ambry Genetics Corporation to illegally transfer to Tempus AI as part of Tempus AI's acquisition of Ambry, without first obtaining Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's legal authorization, in violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy and various other state statutes. The complaint relates that on February 3, 2025, Tempus AI completed its acquisition of Ambry. As a necessary part of the acquisition, Tempus AI compelled Ambry to disclose its enormous database of Genetic Information, including that of Plaintiffs' and Class Members', without the knowledge or written consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members, in violation of state statutes and common law. By deceptively causing the illegal disclosure of Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class's Genetic Information, Tempus AI violated and continues to violate GIPA as well as common law and various state consumer protection statutes, says the suit. For these reasons, Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other remedies the Court deems just and proper to redress Tempus AI's unauthorized collection, disclosure, and use of their highly sensitive Genetic Information. Plaintiffs are individuals who entrusted their Genetic Information to Ambry with the understanding that Ambry would safeguard it. Defendant Tempus AI, Inc. is a healthcare technology company with a mission to build innovative tech solutions oriented around clinical care and research products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com TI COMMUNITIES: Muhammad Balks at Unpaid OT, Biometric Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMIR MUHAMMAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TI COMMUNITIES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04292 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant brought under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other hourly workers regularly record their time using TI Communities' time keeping system, Worksite. When clocking in and clocking out Plaintiff Muhammad and similarly situated employees would use a Face Scan. The Defendant's practice of collecting, storing, and using individual's biometric information violates BIPA. Additionally, throughout Plaintiff's employment, he regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But TI Communities did not pay him for all hours worked forcing him to work off the clock in nearly every pay period. Allegedly, TI Communities paid Plaintiff Muhammad and similarly situated non-discretionary bonuses, which were based on, among other things, the number of units that the Plaintiff and other hourly employees prepared for new tenants, by cleaning, repairing, and otherwise making the unit ready for habitation. But TI Communities did not account for these non-discretionary bonuses when calculating Muhammad's overtime rate, says the suit. Plaintiff Muhammad worked for the Defendant from December 2023 to the present as a caretaker for its Sunset Lake Apartment Homes community. TI Communities, LP is a Delaware partnership that owns and operates apartment communities across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Fernandez Del Castillo, Esq. DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E Adams Street #1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 216 0111 E-mail: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com TIMES INTERNET: Class Settlement in Kishore Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARI KISHORE, et al., v. TIMES INTERNET (UK) LTD., Case No. 4:23-cv-03594-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court appoints Simpluris Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, and directs it to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan and procedure. The parties are also directed to submit a stipulation and proposed order tracking the schedule below, filled in with actual dates, within one week of the entry of this order. The Plaintiff's final approval motion is due by Jan. 26, 2027. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Feb. 25, 2027, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2 on the 4th floor of the Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. The case is a putative class action lawsuit in which the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant purposefully discloses its customers' viewing choices to Meta Platforms, Inc. without the Plaintiffs' or the putative Class Members' knowledge or authorization, and by using pieces of tracking software, including the Meta Pixel. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All persons in the United States who subscribed to Willow TV and watched pre-recorded videos on willow.tv at any time during the Class Period." Class Period is defined as: The time period between July 20, 2021 and Sept. 22, 2023. The Qualified Settlement Fund is defined as the non reversionary cash settlement common fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class in the amount of Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand U.S. Dollars ($850,000.00). The Defendant is a video subscription service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zTdyqC at no extra charge.[CC] TOTAL DIRECTIONAL: Underpays MWD Engineers, Spears Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SPEARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL DIRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01585 (D. Colo., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota Wage Laws. Mr. Spears was employed by Total Directional as a Measurement While Drilling (MWD) engineer from approximately April 15, 2024 through May 2025. Total Directional Services LLC is a service company based in Windsor, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe Street, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 TRUPANION INC: Charges Illegal Administrative Fees, Wood Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUPANION, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03327 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2026) is a proposed consumer class action about alleged drip pricing and junk "administrative" fees charged for Trupanion's pet insurance policies in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, to get a Trupanion quote online, consumers must enter detailed information about their pet. Consumers then customize their premium and get an up front quote (e.g. $199.85/month). But once a consumer goes to pay, Trupanion tags on a $35 "administrative fee." This fee is not driven by administration costs, it is a junk fee imposed for profit, alleges the complaint. Ms. Wood bought pet insurance from Trupanion and was charged a $35 administrative fee. She brings this case for herself and similar California consumers who were charged illegal administrative fees. Trupanion, Inc. is a pet insurance provider headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Stephen Ferruolo, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com sferruolo@dovel.com UNITED HEALTH: Pediatric Clinic Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pediatric Clinic, Ltd., Revival Therapy, P.C., Institute For Social and Emotional Learning, Inc., Orthopedic Associates, S.C., The Behavioral Health Cooperative LLC, Balance Fitness for Life, LLC, Metro Infectious Disease Consultants, P.L.L.C., and all others similarly situated v. United Health Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Insight, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum Bank, Optum Financial, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc.,, Case No. 1:26-cv-03843 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02313-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 7199 South Kingery Highway #1148 Willowbrook, IL 60527 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com The Defendants are represented by: Lucas Thor Rael, Esq. Patricia Brown Holmes, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP One South Dearborn, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 471-8784 Email: lrael@rshc-law.com pholmes@rshc-law.com UNITED HEALTH: Rebound Physical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rebound Physical Therapy, LLC, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. United Health Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Insight, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum Bank, Optum Financial, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01315 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02316-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Ross Strauser, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 2445 M Street NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (469) 421-9091 Email: mstrauser@burnscharest.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (469) 904-4550 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com The Defendants are represented by: Marc A Marinaccio, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 100 International Dr Ste 2000 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 659-2700 Fax: (410) 659-2701 Email: marc.marinaccio@hoganlovells.com UNITED HEALTH: Southeast Kansas Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Southeast Kansas Eye Care Associates, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. United Health Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Insight, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum Bank, Optum Financial, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc.,, Case No. 6:26-cv-01080 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02314-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ethan M. Lange, Esq. George A. Hanson, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Email: lange@stuevesiegel.com hanson@stuevesiegel.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas M. Weems, Esq. Olawale O. Akinmoladun, Esq. SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE, LLP 1000 Walnut Ste 1400, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (819) 292-8264 Fax: (816) 474-3216 Email: dweems@spencerfane.com wakinmoladun@spencerfane.com UNITED HEALTH: Teresa Schroeder Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Teresa Schroeder South City Counsel STL, LLC doing business as: South City Counseling STL; Rupp Chiropractic LLC doing business as: Back to Life Chiropractic; Thin Line Counseling Services, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United Health Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Insight, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum Bank, Optum Financial, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc.,, Case No. 4:26-cv-00510 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02322-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefon David, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7125 Email: david@stuevesiegel.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas M. Weems, Esq. Paul Timothy Jacobson, Esq. SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE, LLP 1000 Walnut Ste 1400, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (819) 292-8264 Fax: (816) 474-3216 Email: dweems@spencerfane.com pjacobson@spencerfane.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Reconsider Jan. 28 Order Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH F. TAMBURRINO, M.D., as an assignee and authorized representative of his patient L.K., and BARBARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-12766-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Wigenton entered a judgment denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration filed in connection with the Court's Jan. 28, 2026 opinion denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant's August 2025 policy change provides a basis for reconsideration because the policy change affects reimbursements for future deep inferior epigastric perforator ("DIEP") flap surgeries. Here, the Plaintiff does not meet her burden of demonstrating that the evidence was unavailable prior to this Court's Opinion. Even if considered "new evidence," the August 2025 policy change would not have altered this Court's basis for denying class certification. First, the Plaintiff does not explain how the August 2025 policy change for future claims would impact the claims at issue, which took place years before the policy change became effective. Simply put, the policy change is inapplicable to the Plaintiff's claims. The remainder of the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration fails to identify any intervening change in the relevant law, new evidence that was unavailable at the time this Court entered its Order, or an error of fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest injustice. UnitedHealthcare provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's opinion dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tdsG5c at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Kulzhanova Alleges Unfair Tariff Fees' Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- AIPARA KULZHANOVA and JOVAN PABON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02097-AT (N.D. Ga., April 16, 2026) is a class action seeking restitution, damages, and equitable relief arising from Defendant unlawfully charging and collecting tariff-related fees from Plaintiffs and thousands of similarly situated consumers and businesses throughout the United States. The Defendant operates as a common carrier and customs broker, providing shipping, logistics, and import clearance services for goods transported into the United States. In that capacity, the Defendant routinely charges its customers purported "duties," "tariffs," and related surcharges as part of the importation and delivery process. The Defendant was not authorized by contract, statute, or law to charge or retain unlawful tariff-related fees. The Defendant's conduct breached its contracts with Plaintiffs and Class members and violated the fundamental obligation of good faith and fair dealing inherent in those agreements, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class members suffered economic injury as a direct result of Defendant's conduct, including payment of unlawful tariff-related charges and associated fees. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. UPS is a licensed customs broker that serves as the importer of record and filer of entry for consumer shipments transported through UPS' international shipping services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 790-6520 E-mail: hsegui@leesegui.com UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Court's Prelim. Injunction in HCR -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.C.R., D.G.M., and H.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00747-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to stay the Court's preliminary injunction entered on March 27, 2026 until the Eleventh Circuit decides the appeal. The Plaintiffs did not meet their heightened burden to show that the facts and law clearly support all four factors required for a mandatory preliminary injunction, the suit says. The Plaintiffs also did not demonstrate any evidence of imminent irreparable harm, much less a clear showing of such harm. The State Defendants, on the other hand, presented significant unrebutted evidence that the Facility has been providing – and continues to provide – confidential access to counsel, the suit adds. Because the Court issued a mandatory preliminary injunction without a sufficient showing of actual and imminent harm in the future, the Court should stay the preliminary injunction. The Defendant is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, comparable to interior ministries abroad. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fjr96w at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Francis A. Zacherl, III, Esq. Oliver Sepulveda, Esq. Nicholas J.P. Meros, Esq. Tara K. Price, Esq. Kassandra S. Reardon, Esq. Margaret A. McCormick, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6300 E-mail: FZacherl@shutts.com OSepulveda@shutts.com NMeros@shutts.com TPrice@shutts.com KReardon@shutts.com MMccormick@shutts.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Woods Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. ------------------------------------------------------ The case LETICIA WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, Case No. 2026CV001665, was removed from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 14, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00641 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for failure to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. University of Phoenix is a private for-profit university in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Taylor D. Brisco, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 100 Crescent Court, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 862-2271 Email: tbrisco@constangy.com UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Class in "Phillips" Partly Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Dwayne Phillips et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00075 (W.D. Va.), Judge Robert S. Ballou of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes and appoint class counsel in this Title VII class action. The Plaintiffs alleged that the University of Virginia Health System (UVA Health) discriminated against them by denying their requests for religious exemptions from its mandated COVID-19 vaccination policy. In the fall of 2021, UVA Health mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for Tier 1 employees whose jobs required them to be present in Health System facilities. The vaccination policy allowed employees to submit requests for religious exemptions to a Religious Exemption Committee under the 2021 Procedure. Training materials for that procedure identified six faiths with known prohibitions against vaccination and instructed that exemption requests from members of those faiths be approved absent any reason to suspect dishonesty. Employees not belonging to one of the six listed faiths had their requests forwarded to the committee for further scrutiny. In October 2022, UVA Health replaced the 2021 Procedure with an expanded review process. The Plaintiffs, each of whom sought a religious exemption that was denied, ultimately lost their jobs after declining the vaccine. Plaintiffs sought certification of three classes: (1) the Disfavored Religions Class, consisting of approximately 210 UVA Health employees who requested a religious accommodation, were not members of UVA Health's established religions, and suffered adverse employment action; (2) the Abortion Objectors Class, consisting of approximately 120 members who submitted exemption requests based on the vaccines' association with abortion or fetal cell lines and suffered adverse employment action; and (3) the Failure-to-Accommodate Class, consisting of approximately 210 members who requested accommodations on religious grounds and suffered adverse employment action as a result. The Court found that this class satisfied all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class was readily ascertainable from UVA Health's records, and its estimated 210 members satisfied the numerosity requirement. On commonality, the Court noted that the 2021 Procedure presumptively approved exemption requests from adherents of six favored religions while subjecting all others to heightened scrutiny. Statistical evidence showed that UVA Health granted all requests from individuals identifying with one of the six listed religions, while granting only four of 397 requests from those outside those faiths. The Court found that this statistical disparity, combined with the uniform discriminatory policy, raised a common question capable of class-wide resolution: whether UVA Health's exemption process violated Title VII by treating some religious beliefs as more valid than others. Typicality and adequacy requirements were also met. On predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court found that common questions of liability predominated over individualized damages inquiries, and that class treatment was superior to dozens of individual suits raising identical legal questions about the same policy. The Court denied certification of this class for failure to satisfy the commonality requirement. Unlike the Disfavored Religions Class, Plaintiffs in this class did not point to any facially discriminatory policy. The record showed that UVA Health evaluated abortion-based requests for sincerity in the same manner as any other request outside the six established faiths. Plaintiffs' statistical evidence did not establish a link between high denial rates and a specific discriminatory practice. The individual beliefs and explanations varied significantly among class members, requiring employee-by-employee inquiries, rendering class-wide resolution unworkable. The Court also denied certification of this class. Adjudicating these claims would require individualized assessments of each employee's sincerity, the religious nature of their beliefs, and the undue hardship to UVA Health for each distinct job role. Because UVA Health evaluated each request individually, the claims were not amenable to common proof. The class therefore failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement, and typicality was not met for the same reasons. Accordingly, the Court certified the Disfavored Religions Class and appointed Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. Relief under the certification order is limited to UVA Health and does not extend to co-defendant UVA Imaging. Certification of the Abortion Objectors Class and the Failure-to-Accommodate Class was denied. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated April 23rd is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8vt51O from PacerMonitor.com VENEZUELA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mazzaccone v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24-cv-09114-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a further extension of the deadline for the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, along with a corresponding extension of the reply deadline for the Plaintiff. The Defendant submits that these further extensions are warranted because the Second Circuit is still considering the Defendant's petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) seeking review of a class certification decision in a similar case brought by the same proposed lead plaintiff and counsel, Mazzaccone v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24‑cv‑06168‑DLC (S.D.N.Y.). Accordingly, the Defendant requests that the Court further extend the deadline for Defendant's opposition to May 29, 2026, and the deadline for the Plaintiff's reply to June 29, 2026. Should the Second Circuit not act on the Rule 23(f) petition in the near term, the parties and the Court can reassess whether any further extension is warranted. On Feb. 20, 2026, the Court entered a schedule for briefing the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, which was subsequently filed on March 13, 2026 Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MvxQ1M at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Marisa F. Antonelli, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 E-mail: mantonelli@velaw.com ccardozo@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VITA COCO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VITA COCO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03396 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in New York, NY, The Vita Coco Company, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, www.vitacoco.com, which offers coconut water and beverage products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WALGREEN EASTERN: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Monks Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE MONKS, KELLEY GRAVES, and DOUGLAS SHELTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN EASTERN CO, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12004-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered a revised scheduling order. The Revised Scheduling Order is intended to provide a reasonable timetable for discovery and motion practice in order to help ensure a fair and just resolution of this matter without undue expense or delay. Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.1(f), it is ordered that: All requests for production of documents and interrogatories must be served by July 23, 2026. All depositions, other than expert depositions, must be completed by Sept. 24, 2026. All discovery, other than expert discovery, must be completed by Sept. 24, 2026. Trial experts for the party with the burden of proof must be designated, and the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must be disclosed, by Aug. 24, 2026. All trial experts must be deposed by Oct. 23, 2026. Motions for class certification and summary judgment must be filed by Nov. 24, 2026. Walgreen retails pharmaceuticals products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zeU5xV at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON NATIONALS: NCL's Bid to Intervene Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYMIE GUSTAFSON, v. WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03033-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting in part and denying in part NCL's motion to intervene and to stay. The court permits NCL to intervene for the purpose of seeking a stay but denies the request. The court also grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. The court declines to compel arbitration or dismiss the Plaintiff's damages claim. The court dismisses the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for lack of standing. NCL seeks to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking a stay; it has not asked to assert a claim. If anything, NCL is attempting to consolidate all claims related to Defendant's conduct in one court, not split them between two. The rule against claim-splitting thus does not bar intervention. Instead of kicking both the intervention and stay questions down the line, the court sees it as more efficient to allow NCL to intervene and address the fully briefed stay question now. The Plaintiff is the master of the complaint, and the court must evaluate the arbitrability of the Plaintiff's claim based on what she actually alleges. Whether the Plaintiff can adequately represent a class that includes online purchasers is a question for another day. The court therefore denies the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. On July 16, 2024, NCL filed a complaint in D.C. Superior Court alleging violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) " in connection with certain of the Nationals' ticket sales practices." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant charges for its tickets additional "Junk Fees," or "unfair or deceptive fees that are charged for goods or services that have little or no added value to the consumer or fees that are hidden, such as those disclosed only at a later stage in the consumer's purchasing process or not at all." The Defendant operates as a professional baseball team. . A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jtl2fs at no extra charge.[CC] WERNER BUS: Terminates Employees Without Proper Notice, Cruz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, 943 W Liberty Street Allentown, PA 18102, Plaintiff vs. WERNER BUS LINES, INC. 144 Chester Ave. Phoenixville, PA 19460, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02468 (E.D. Pa., April 15, 2026) is a class action to redress Defendant's violations Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The complaint relates that the Named Plaintiff contemplated beginning a position as a motor coach driver following completion of the training program. On February 25, 2026, Named Plaintiff was verbally advised that he was terminated due to his "background check." At no time did Defendant provide Named Plaintiff with any paperwork related to the background check upon which it based its termination. Prior to the termination, Defendant failed to provide Named Plaintiff with the FCRA's required Pre-Adverse Action Notices. The Defendant's conduct, as well as that of its agents, servants, and/or employees, was intentional, willful, and in reckless disregard of federal laws and the rights of Named Plaintiff and the putative class members. As a result of Defendant's actions, Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs were denied sufficient time to review and dispute the report before Defendant took adverse action with regard to their employment and/or application for employment, says the suit. Named Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs for the violations pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiff Edward Cruz was hired by the Defendant as a motor coach operator in February 2026. Defendant Werner Bus Lines, Inc. is engaged in business of providing transportation services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manali Arora, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner St. Ste 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: 856-685-7420 Facsimile: 856-685-7417 E-mail: marora@swartz-legal.com WESTPORT LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Holekamp ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM F. HOLEKAMP, Trustee of the WILLIAM F. HOLEKAMP REVOCABLE TRUST, v. WESTPORT LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05658-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order as follows: Westport argues that Holekamp fails to establish the first element of a breach of contract claim. It asserts that nothing in the parties' signed Agreement required it to perform the retrofit work at a fixed price and absent that, it cannot be held liable for breach. The Court agrees. For a contract term to be enforceable, it must be sufficiently definite to allow the court "to determine whether a breach has occurred and to identify an appropriate remedy." Holekamp fails to meet that burden. Finally, Holekamp fails to prove damages. Absent a contractual provision requiring completion of the yacht by a specific date, he has no basis to require Westport to bear the costs of a voluntary trip planned during that period. Holekamp was likely aware of any delay; his representative was on site and received regular updates. Westport's motion for summary judgment, on Holekamp's breach of contract claim is granted. Because the parties' Local Rule 37 expedited joint motion for discovery, relates only to the breach of contract claim, and not to Holekamp's remaining breach of warranty claim, it is DENIED as moot. Westport operates within the ship building and repairing industry. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ugsuik at no extra charge.[CC] YOUTH OPPORTUNITY: Hardaway Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARQUEZ HARDAWAY, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02430 (W.D. Tenn., April 16, 2026) is a class action brought against Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid employees of Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a common plan, policy, and practice of requiring Plaintiff and others similarly situated to attend up to 16 hours of work-related online safety training within weekly pay periods during all times material without paying them the applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay for such training time. The Defendant failed to keep accurate time keeping and pay records of Plaintiff and those similarly situated during all times relevant. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are current or former hourly-paid safety security specialists of Defendant. Youth Opportunity Group, LLC owns and manages facilities for troubled youths in Memphis and other cities in Tennessee and in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, and Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. Landry Smith, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com lsmith@jsyc.com ZENBUSINESS INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Michail Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ABANOUB MICHAIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZENBUSINESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00960 (W.D. Tex., April 16, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a cyber incident that occurred in March 2026. On March 26, 2026, the Defendant experienced a data breach in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and exfiltrated files containing sensitive Private Information. To date, the Defendant has yet to issue any public disclosure about the data breach. The complaint alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from their private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. ZenBusiness, Inc. is an Austin, Texas-based, public-benefit software-as-a-service company founded in 2015 that helps entrepreneurs form, manage, and grow businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 540 Heights Boulevard, Ste 330-B Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: agentile@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ********* 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 ***