260505.mbx

260505.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 5, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 89 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Earlville Community Sues Over Unlawful Turnout Gear 3M COMPANY: Rochester, NY Balks at Firefighters' Chemical Exposure ACME TRANSPORT: Clement Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALATRADE FOODS: Haynes Balks at Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ALIGNMENT HEALTH PLAN: Fierro Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Class Cert Reply Extended to May 4 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Discovery Ongoing in Class, Air Crash Suits AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Suits over Antitrust, Air Crash Issues AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlements Reached in Antitrust Suits APPLICANT CHECK: Produces Illegal Consumer Reports, Mack Says AWENDAW, SC: Faces Griffin Suit Over FOIA Violations BAKER HUGHES: Claims Dismissed in C3.ai Securities Suit BEST BUY CO: Moon Suit Removed to D. Minnesota BESTLAMINATE INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BISSELL HOMECARE INC: Perales Files Suit in S.D. New York BOB'S CHALET SKI: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BONNIE PLANTS LLC: Wood Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BRIAN ENGLISH: Must Release Ramos-Medina from Custody BUTCHERBOX OPCO: James Suit Removed to C.D. California C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAFE OLYMPIA: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. CHURCH STREET: Slaven Seeks Initial OK of $495K Settlement CLINICAL MEDIA LLC: Nunez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York CME GROUP: Post-Trial Motions Pending in Court COMMUNITY VETERINARY: Diamond Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONDUENT BUSINESS: Jetton Cybersecurity Suit Removed to W.D. Ark. CONNIE JACKSON: Trans Union Suit Transferred to W.D.N.C. CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed DAVID EVANS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dickinson Alleges DEL MONTE CAPITOL: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. California DELAWARE NORTH: Lenahan Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. DINE BRANDS GLOBAL: Guidotti Suit Removed to N.D. California DOGTOPIA ENTERPRISES: Spechler Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida DOW CHEMICAL: Derivative Actions Stayed DRUMMAC INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EAGLE FAMILY: Removes Argueta Suit to C.D. Calif. EDWARD JONES: Dixon Seeks Conditional Class Certification EDWARD JONES: Dixon Seeks to Certify Financial Advisor Class ELIGO ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in Orzolek Suit Due Feb. 2, 2027 ELLIOTT-LEWIS CORP: Giambrone Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ENSURETY VENTURES: Campbell Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas EVOLUTIONS HAIR: Initial Case Management Conference Order Entered EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Seeks to Certify Class of Investors FABLETICS INC: Brodbeck Sues Over Unlawful Tariffs FAYETTE RESOURCES: Whitehurst Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FCA US: "9-Speed Automatic Transmission" False, Gonzalez Says FEDERAL EXPRESS: Masinas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIVE POINT: Settlement Reached in Bayview Action FORD MOTOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid FUENTES&FUENTES CORP: Barillas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime GAP INC: Bazabal Suit Removed to S.D. California GEORGIA HERITAGE: Leslie Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. GOOD DOG: Parties Seek More Time to File Conditional Cert Response GOYA FOODS: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users GUARANTEED HOME: Court OKs "Ocampo" Conditional Collective Action HANDI-FOIL CORP: Cazaldo Files Suit in W.D. New York HEWITT'S GARDEN: All Discovery Due Oct. 15 HIGHWOOD USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Deinnocentes Says HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 25, 2027 HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due July 1 IMPERFECT FOODS: Removes Brown Jr. Suit to N.D. Calif. JACK PHELAN CHEVROLET: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois JEBEDIAH S. CHRISTY: Leka Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts JEROME HARRIS: Class Settlement in Alexander Gets Prelim. Nod KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL: Sohal Suit Removed to E.D. California KRISTI NOEM: Swaso Loses Class Certification Bid KUNES CHEVROLET GMC: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin LEVI STRAUSS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Whitfield Due Nov. 13 LEVI STRAUSS: Court Narrows Claims in Whitfield Suit LIFE EMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brace Suit Alleges LIFE LINE SCREENING: Rupert Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime LIMITLESS X INC: Quinn Files Suit in D. Oregon LINKEDIN CORP: Melunsky Balks at Illegal Personal Info Disclosure LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Securities Suit in New York LOWE'S HOME: Class Cert Filing in Lowe Suit Due August 10 LOWE'S HOME: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Garner Due August 10 LUV CAR WASH GROUP: Sancruzado Suit Removed to S.D. Florida MACY'S RETAIL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rheinor Due March 30, 2027 MAGGIE'S GLASTONBURY: Faces Judd Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in GA MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge MARYLAND: T.G. Suit Seeks to Revise Proposed Briefing Schedule MDL 3035: Settlement in Retirement Fund Suit Gets Prelim. Nod MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Durbin Securities Suit MEIJER INC: Court to Narrow Claims in Trout Suit MINDVALLEY INC: Larsen Files Suit in E.D. New York MINISO GROUP: Amended Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice MNTN INC: Tuthill Files Suit in S.D. California MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hindlemann Action over SEC Disclosures MOLLY MUTT: Deinnocentes Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MORGAN STANLEY & CO: Elmarouk Sues Over Interception Technologies MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: "Gay" Class Counsel Awarded $137K in Fees NALANE GREEN SOLUTIONS: Khan Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages NAVIENT CORP: Ballard Seeks Leave to Submit Class Cert Reply NET POWER: Glancy Prongay Named Lead Counsel in "Luciani" NEW YORK, NY: Delarosa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation NEW YORK, NY: Jackson Seeks Conditional Class Certification NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Prelim. Nod NISSAN NORTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Wilson" TCPA Suit NO SCRUBS INC: Biscaha Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Tam Suit Removed to N.D. California NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Sues Over NPK Fertilizers Monopoly OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Class Cert Bid in Brasile Due August 21 ONE LIFESTYLE: Everett Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Marcelino Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Cal. PUTNAM COUNTY, FL: Suit Balks at Provisions of Code of Ordinances RECTOR AND VISITORS: Bid to Certify Classes Partly OK'd REDLINE CAPITAL: Bid to Extend Deadline to File Class Cert. OK'd SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Buezo PAGA Class Suit SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Gomez Labor and PAGA Class Suit SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Guerrero PAGA Class Suit SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Lobatos PAGA Class Suit SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez PAGA Class Suit SEI INVESTMENTS: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Pa. SELECTBLINDS LLC: Removes Baker Suit to W.D. Wash. SEPHORA USA INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEVEN STARS: Harris Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SIBER SYSTEMS: Gonzales Fake Pricing Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SIBYLLINE AMERICAS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Keane Due August 10 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Roeun Suit Removed to N.D. California SKECHERS USA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Liss Due Feb. 19, 2027 SLM CORP: Zappia Files Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures SOFIDEL AMERICA: Warren Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM: "Nobel" Class Counsel Gets $3.5M in Fees STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Doe Files Suit in S.D. California STONECO LTD: Settlement in Ray Gets Court OK SUNRUN INC: Alarcon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SVB FINANCIAL: Buchanan Has Until June 18 to Oppose Bid to Dismiss SVB FINANCIAL: TIAA-CREF Has Until June 18 to Oppose Bid to Dismiss SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Has Until June 18 to Oppose Bid to Dismiss SYNEOS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Kempen Suit Due Oct. 1 TIM MORAN HYUNDAI: Dominguez Suit Removed to C.D. California TIM MORAN HYUNDAI: Hook Suit Removed to C.D. California TROPIAN INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Alshubrumi Securities Suit UHS OF HARTGROVE: Lawal Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages UNILEVER UNITED: Hossain Bid to Seal Specific Language Partly OK'd UNITED HEALTH: Big Island Suit Removed to D. Hawaii UNITED STATES: Gontarz Balks at DOD's Contingency-Coding Policy UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Removes Therapy Suit to D. Mass. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Therapy My Way Suit Removed to E.D. New York URBAN OUTFITTERS: Vanwormer Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania URBAN OUTFITTERS: Verduzco Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Gonsales Suit Removed to N.D. California VAN LAURENCE BARKER: Cervantez-Tkac Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky VAYAN GROUP: Montgomery Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois VERTIV HOLDINGS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed VERTIV HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. VIRGINIA: Disfavored Religions Class Certified in Phillips Suit WATERWAYS PLAZA LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in Harris Tossed WESTROCK SERVICES: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California WREN U.S. HOLDINGS: Hughes Balks at Mass Layoff Without Notice ZSPACE INC: Kovaleski Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements ********* 3M COMPANY: Earlville Community Sues Over Unlawful Turnout Gear --------------------------------------------------------------- Earlville Community Fire Protection District, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY), EIDP, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CORTEVA, INC., ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC., FIRE-DEX, LLC, GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC., INNOTEX, LION GROUP, INC., MILLIKEN & COMPANY, SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:26-cv-02388 (D. Minn., April 27, 2026), is brought asserting public rights and the public interest in pursuing legal remedies against Defendants to recover the costs of purchasing the PFAS Turnout Gear and the costs of remediation, repair, and replacement of property contaminated by PFAS, including the costs of removal, remediation, and replacement of the PFAS Turnout Gear. The Defendants have designed, manufactured, marketed, commercialized, and sold firefighter PPE, including hoods, helmets, coats, pants, gloves, boots, reflective tape, and other multilayered PPE ("Turnout Gear") that is laden with highly toxic, carcinogenic, synthetic perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances ("PFAS"). They did so using a closely knit, highly interdependent, multi-component Turnout Gear supply chain (the "PFAS Turnout Gear supply chain"), through which each Defendant provided PFAS products and related services that were essential to the final PFAS-contaminated Turnout Gear ensembles ("PFAS Turnout Gear") that were purchased by Earlville and other similarly situated entities ("Class Members"). PFAS concentrations and migration substantially increase when exposed to physical stressors associated with firefighting activities. PFAS in the PFAS Turnout Gear leach, shed, crumble, abrade, off-gas (a process in which a chemical is emitted in the form of a gas), and otherwise migrate out of the PFAS Turnout Gear, contaminating the surrounding environment, property, and persons with highly toxic, carcinogenic, and unreasonably dangerous PFAS. The Defendants knew that the PFAS in the PFAS Turnout Gear would not remain contained or stable and that their PFAS Turnout Gear would cause unreasonably dangerous exposure and contamination of Earlville's and Class Members' firefighters, fire stations, fire trucks, occupational equipment, personal property, firehouse furnishings, lockers and storage areas, laundering equipment and facilities, bunk rooms, other surrounding property, and other exposed employees and persons. Nevertheless, Defendants agreed to use large quantities of added PFAS throughout their PFAS Turnout Gear, in every component and layer, from infused fibers and treated fabrics to finishing sprays and glues, as their preferred technology for achieving desired water and heat resistance. They did so despite knowing that the chemical characteristics, persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and carcinogenicity of PFAS render them particularly unsuitable for use in firefighting activities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Earlville is a municipal corporation organized under the Illinois Fire Protection District Act, 70 ILCS 705. The Defendants designed, created, developed, tested, manufactured, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, certified, promoted, distributed, and/or sold the PFAS Turnout Gear, components, equipment, materials, and/or chemicals throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com - and - Kenneth A Wexler, Esq. Bethany R. Turke, Esq. Gwyneth F. Lietz, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 346-2222 Fax: (312) 346-0022 Email: kaw@wbe-llp.com brt@wbe-llp.com gfl@wbe-llp.com 3M COMPANY: Rochester, NY Balks at Firefighters' Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY), EIDP, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CORTEVA, INC., ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC., FIRE-DEX, LLC, GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC., LION GROUP, INC., MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING L.L.C., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and STEDFAST USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-02329-JWB-DJF (D. Minn., April 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants arising from the alleged toxic exposure of Rochester's and Class Members' firefighters and other persons exposed to unreasonably dangerous perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), which is known to cause cancer and other serious harms to human health. According to the complaint, Rochester and a proposed Class of fire departments purchased and used Defendants' specialized occupational personal protective equipment. The PPE includes self-contained breathing apparatuses, hoods, helmets, coats, pants, gloves, boots, reflective tape, and other multilayered PPE, which are laden with toxic, carcinogenic, synthetic PFAS. Rochester and the other Class Members are financially responsible for the protective gear of the respective fire departments' firefighters. When exposed to heat, ultraviolet light, water, and routine wear and handling, PFAS off-gas, break down, and degrade into highly mobile and toxic particles and dust, further accelerating contamination of their surrounding environment and human PFAS exposure, says the suit. The Defendants, who knew for decades that PFAS posed major health risks, through a common enterprise, sold, marketed, and otherwise supplied PFAS turnout gear to the Class Members without disclosing the toxicity of the PFAS turnout gear. The Defendants, fraudulently concealing negative scientific research, failed to disclose to fire departments and public entities that the PFAS in turnout gear is dangerous to health, property, and the environment. Instead, the Defendants collaborated to conceal the truth, and such concealment was a common purpose of the PFAS cover-up enterprise, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff is a municipality located in the state of New York. It operates a fire department and employs over 500 professional firefighters. The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS, and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett Blanchfield, Esq. Brant Penney, Esq. Roberta Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 So. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Daniel H. Herrera, Esq. Henry Visser Melville, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com hmelville@caffertyclobes.com ACME TRANSPORT: Clement Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACME Transport (USA), LTD., et al. The case is styled as Semaj Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACME Transport (USA), LTD., a Washington corporation, Shashank Polepalli, Case No. 26CV182958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." ACME Transport (USA), LTD. -- https://acmetransportusa.com/ -- are a provider of multiple truckload transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradan Litzinger, Esq. Hunter Pyle, Esq. Katie Fiester, Esq. HUNTER PYLE LAW 505 14th St., Ste. 600 Oakland, CA 94612-1911 Phone: 510.444.4400 Phone: Fax: 510.444.4410 Email: blitzinger@hunterpylelaw.com hunter@hunterpylelaw.com kfiester@hunterpylelaw.com ALATRADE FOODS: Haynes Balks at Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL HAYNES, and MARCELLUS GARNER, individually, on behalf of the AlaTrade Foods Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEPHEN C. JAMES, as trustee of the AlaTrade Foods Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Trust, ALATRADE FOODS HOLDINGS, INC., ALATRADE FOODS, INC., DAVIS LEE, BETH LEE, and BETH LEE as trustee of the Davis Lee 2017 Irrevocable Trustee Family Trust, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00664-HNJ (N.D. Ala., April 22, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This action is brought under Sections 404, 406, 409, and 502(a) of the ERISA for losses suffered by the AlaTrade Foods Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and its participants caused by Defendant Stephen C. James, the fiduciary trustee of the Plan, when he caused the Plan to engage in ERISA prohibited transactions in connection with its leveraged purchase of AlaTrade stock from the Selling Shareholders, and other plan-wide relief. Specifically, the Trustee caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions under ERISA when he caused the Plan to purchase Company stock from the Selling Shareholders and transfer assets of the Plan to them, and financed that purchase with loans from the Selling Shareholders and the Company, who were parties in interest to the Plan. The Selling Shareholders were knowing participants in the prohibited transactions, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek, in the alternative, to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and the improper profits realized by Defendants resulting from their causing prohibited transactions and knowingly participating in the prohibited transactions, breaching fiduciary duties under ERISA and knowingly participating in fiduciary breaches of duty, and equitable relief. AlaTrade Foods Holdings, Inc. was formed on June 4, 2021 as the parent company to Alatrade Foods, which became the subsidiary operating company. AlaTrade Foods provides poultry processing services, primarily on a contract basis, as well as value-add services such as marinating, breading, and cooking poultry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David L. Selby II, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 3000 Riverchase Galleria Suite 905 Birmingham, AL 35244 Telephone: (205) 988-9253 Facsimile: (205) 733-4896 E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com - and - Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 318 W. Adams Street, Suite 1512 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 500-8680 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com - and - Laura Babiak, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: lbabiak@baileyglasser.com ALIGNMENT HEALTH PLAN: Fierro Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alignment Health Plan. The case is styled as Jorge Fierro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alignment Health Plan, Case No. 5:26-cv-00907-R (W.D. Okla., April 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alignment Health -- https://www.alignmenthealthplan.com/ -- is an insurance company that offers various Medicare Advantage plans in California, Nevada, Texas, and North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 101 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Class Cert Reply Extended to May 4 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Middleton, et al., v. Amentum Government Services Parent Holdings, LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456 (D. Kan., Oct. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file reply regarding motion to certify class. -- Reply deadline May 4, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Amentum provides global technical and engineering services.[CC] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Discovery Ongoing in Class, Air Crash Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines Group 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 23, 2026, that private party plaintiffs filed multiple putative class action antitrust complaints against AAG and JetBlue Airways Corporation in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the District of Massachusetts in December 2022 and February 2023 alleging violations of U.S. antitrust law in connection with the Northeast Alliance. The initial Eastern District of New York actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023, that the private party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on February 3, 2023. In March 2023 AAG filed a motion in the District of Massachusetts action to transfer that case to the Eastern District of New York for consolidation with the cases pending in that venue and the District of Massachusetts granted that motion. The remaining cases were consolidated with the other actions in the Eastern District of New York. The private party plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint in June 2023 and a third amended complaint in August 2023. In September 2023 AAG and JetBlue filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and the court denied that motion in September 2024. AAG and JetBlue filed answers to the private party plaintiffs third amended complaint in October 2024. American Eagle flight 5342 was involved in a fatal accident on January 29, 2025, near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C. while en route from Wichita, Kansas. Beginning on September 24, 2025, multiple wrongful death and survival actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia related to the accident. All cases have been assigned to the same judge and are proceeding under streamlined pleading and discovery procedures, including a requirement that plaintiffs file a single consolidated Master Complaint (MC), with later-joining plaintiffs submitting short form complaints adopting the MC and adding any plaintiff-specific information. The MC alleges that the U.S. Government, American and PSA Airlines, Inc. (PSA) negligently caused or contributed to the accident. Defendants deadline to respond to the MC was in December 2025. The U.S. Government filed an answer admitting liability only as to claims that the helicopter pilots were negligent in failing to see and avoid Flight 5342, while American and PSA filed motions to dismiss asserting federal preemption and related failure-to-state-a-claim grounds. The airlines motions to dismiss were denied without prejudice on February 27, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 27, 2026, discovery is ongoing pursuant to an expedited 18-month discovery and pre-trial calendar, and trial is currently set for April 12, 2027. American Airlines Group Inc. is a major U.S.-based network airline holding company whose primary subsidiary, American Airlines, operates an extensive global route network. The company provides passenger and cargo air transportation services through its mainline and regional affiliates, including under the American Eagle brand. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Suits over Antitrust, Air Crash Issues --------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines, 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 23, 2026, that two private party plaintiffs filed putative class action antitrust complaints against AAG and JetBlue Airways Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on December 5, 2022 and December 7, 2022, alleging that AAG and JetBlue violated U.S. antitrust law in connection with the previously disclosed Northeast Alliance, that these actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023, and that the private party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on February 3, 2023. On February 2, 2023 and February 15, 2023, private party plaintiffs filed two additional putative class action antitrust complaints against AAG and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively, that in March 2023 AAG filed a motion in the District of Massachusetts case to transfer that case to the Eastern District of New York and consolidate it with the cases pending in that venue, and that the District of Massachusetts granted that motion and the remaining cases were consolidated with the other actions in the Eastern District of New York. In June 2023 the private party plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, followed by a third amended complaint in August 2023, that in September 2023 AAG and JetBlue filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, that in September 2024 the court denied that motion, and that AAG and JetBlue filed answers to the private party plaintiffs third amended complaint in October 2024. This is with regards to the American Eagle Flight 5342 Accident Litigation, arising from a fatal midair collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on January 29, 2025, involving a Bombardier CRJ700 aircraft operated by PSA Airlines, Inc. Beginning on September 24, 2025, multiple wrongful death and survival actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia related to the accident, and additional actions are expected. All cases have been assigned to a single judge and are proceeding under streamlined pleading and discovery procedures. The court has required plaintiffs to file a single consolidated Master Complaint (MC), with later-joining plaintiffs to file short form complaints adopting the MC and adding any plaintiff-specific information. The MC alleges that the U.S. Government, American and PSA negligently caused or contributed to the accident. Defendants respective deadlines to respond to the MC were in December 2025. The U.S. Government filed an answer to the MC admitting liability only as to claims that the helicopter pilots were negligent in failing to see and avoid Flight 5342. American and PSA filed motions to dismiss asserting federal preemption and related failure to state a claim grounds. The airlines motions to dismiss were denied without prejudice on February 27, 2026, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 27, 2026. Discovery is ongoing pursuant to an expedited 18-month discovery and pre-trial calendar, which sets the trial date for April 12, 2027. American Airlines, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is a major network air carrier providing scheduled air transportation for passengers and cargo domestically and internationally. The company operates primarily under the American Airlines and American Eagle brands. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlements Reached in Antitrust Suits -------------------------------------------------------- American Express Co 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 23, 2026, that On March 31, 2025, the parties reached an agreement with the class representatives to settle an anitrust action, which is subject to court approval. After trial in August 2025, the jury returned a verdict finding in favor of the company on all claims except an Illinois consumer law claim for the class of non-rewards credit card holders in Illinois, for which the jury awarded $12.5 million in damages. The company has reached an agreement with the class representatives to settle all claims in this action, which is subject to court approval. The company was named in a January 29, 2019 putative class action brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned "David Moskowitz, et al. (formerly Oliver) v. American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc." The plaintiffs are holders of MasterCard, Visa and/or Discover credit and/or debit cards (but not American Express cards) and allege they paid higher prices as a result of the anti-steering and non-discrimination provisions in the companys merchant agreements in violation of federal antitrust law and the antitrust and consumer laws of various states. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other forms of relief. The court dismissed plaintiffs federal antitrust claim, numerous state antitrust and consumer protection claims and their unjust enrichment claim. For the remaining state antitrust or consumer protection claims, the court certified classes for (i) holders of Visa and MasterCard debit cards in eight states and Washington, D.C., and (ii) holders of Visa, MasterCard and Discover credit cards that do not offer rewards or charge an annual fee in two states and Washington, D.C. In addition, on March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captioned "B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al.," for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against American Express Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. On May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On August 28, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 14, 2024, the court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration as to class members who are subject to its merchant agreements, but did not stay the claims pending arbitration. On November 15, 2024, the company appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requesting a stay of all claims against it that are subject to arbitration. American Express Co, headquartered in New York, is a global payments and travel company that provides charge and credit card products, expense management services and related financial services to consumers and businesses worldwide. The company operates through its Global Consumer Services, Commercial Services and Global Merchant and Network Services segments.. APPLICANT CHECK: Produces Illegal Consumer Reports, Mack Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE MACK, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLICANT CHECK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04521 (D.N.J., April 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia: (i) failing to contemporaneously notify Plaintiff and other consumers of Defendant's reporting of public record information to end users; and (ii) producing consumer reports regarding Plaintiff and other consumers that were incomplete and not up to date. The Defendant's actions were taken according to company policy and procedure in violation of the FCRA and affect each proposed class member. As such, the Plaintiff, on her own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this class action complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiff Mack is, and was at all relevant times, a resident of New Jersey. She was the subject of a consumer report produced by Defendant for employment purposes. Applicant Check, a consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA, is located in Lakewood, New Jersey, and is engaged in the business of producing consumer reports for employment purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Payne, IV, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105, PMB #161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 Facsimile: (646) 417-4967 E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com - and - Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 2300 Main Street Suite 900 - #16946775 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com AWENDAW, SC: Faces Griffin Suit Over FOIA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- COLBY J. GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF AWENDAW, SOUTH CAROLINA; and KATHERINE E. WATKINS, its Administrator, Defendants, Case No. 2026CP1001858 (S.C. Comm. Pleas, Charleston Cty., April 13, 2026) alleges violation of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed to comply with Plaintiff's FOIA Request, make proper response to Plaintiff's FOIA Request, respond timely that the requested "Public Records" would be made available, make the requested "Public Records" available for copying, and furnish the requested "Public Records." Awendaw is a small fishing town in Charleston County, South Carolina, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Bible, Jr., Esg. KENISON, DUDLEY & CRAWFORD, LLC 325 W. McBee Ave., STE 301 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 242-4899 Email: bible@conlaw.com BAKER HUGHES: Claims Dismissed in C3.ai Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Co. 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 24, 2026, that on or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled "The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al.," No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The amended complaint names as defendants C3.ai, Inc. (C3 AI), certain of its current and/or former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering, the company, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI, and seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On February 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims against the Company. However, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, reasserting their claims against it under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. On or around February 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, once again reasserting their claims against the company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. On March 12, 2026, the court dismissed the claims against the company. Baker Hughes Co is an energy technology company that provides solutions for energy and industrial customers worldwide, including products and services for oilfield operations, gas technology, and industrial and digital applications. The company operates across multiple segments focused on improving efficiency, reliability, and sustainability in energy production and processing. BEST BUY CO: Moon Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Corlis Moon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Case No. 27-CV-26-4671 was removed from the Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, to the United States District Court for District of Minnesota on April 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02381-JMB-DJF. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative nationwide class that includes Plaintiff and "all people in the United States whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was shared by Defendant to a third-party data clean room and then sold to other third parties through Best Buy Ads during the class period." The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action. First, a claim on behalf of the putative Virginia Subclass for violation of the Virginia Personal Information Privacy Act ("VPIPA"), he seeks an injunction, compensatory damages, statutory damages ($100 per violation), and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Supalla, Esq. Allison M. Lange Garrison, Esq. Erika R. McClintock, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-305-7500 Fax: 612-305-7501 Email: dsupalla@nilanjohnson.com alangegarrison@nilanjohnson.com emcclintock@nilanjohnson.com BESTLAMINATE INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Leah Walker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bestlaminate Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04738 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.bestlaminate.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant 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 flooring products, including laminate, vinyl, hardwood, as well as waterproof flooring options and installation accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law BISSELL HOMECARE INC: Perales Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bissell Homecare, Inc. The case is styled as Leeann Perales, Adam Wells, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bissell Homecare, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03474 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Bissell Homecare, Inc. -- https://www.bissell.com/ -- manufactures household vacuum cleaners and cleaning products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Samuel Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com BOB'S CHALET SKI: Bahena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Bahena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bob's Chalet Ski & Sno Board, L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-04321 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.bobssportschalet.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a range of outdoor and sporting goods, including clothing, footwear, winter sports equipment, accessories, and practical gear like backpacks and hydration items, supporting sports, travel, and outdoor activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BONNIE PLANTS LLC: Wood Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Wood, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bonnie Plants, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04763 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://bonnieplants.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of live plants for home gardening, including vegetables, herbs, fruit plants, flowers, and succulents, with varieties available seasonally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law BRIAN ENGLISH: Must Release Ramos-Medina from Custody ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON JOSUE RAMOS-MEDINA, a/k/a Darwin Javier Diaz Medina, v. BRIAN ENGLISH, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00236-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Brisco entered an order that: (1) Conditionally grants the petition and directs the respondents to release Marlon Josue Ramos-Medina a/k/a Darwin Javier Diaz Medina on or before May 1, 2026, unless he is provided with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226 and corresponding regulations; (2) Directs the clerk to email forthwith a copy of this order to the Warden of the Miami Correctional Facility at the Indiana Department of Correction to secure compliance with this order; and (3) Directs the Warden to file proof of compliance with this order by May 4, 2026. Mr. Medina was arrested pursuant to a warrant, which accords with section 1226(a). However, he has not been given an opportunity for bond because officials view him as ineligible for bond under § 1225(b)(2). Immigration detainee Marlon Josue Ramos-Medina a/k/a Darwin Javier Diaz Medina, a litigant without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, alleging he is being confined in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States. Mr. Medina is a native of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in 2019. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjPHDF at no extra charge.[CC] BUTCHERBOX OPCO: James Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dallas James, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BUTCHERBOX OPCO, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Case No. 30-2026-01551170-CU-MT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01001. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against ButcherBox: Plaintiff alleges ButcherBox violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). In particular, Plaintiff claims that ButcherBox allegedly caused him to incur unlawful charges after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription on ButcherBox's website. The Plaintiff alleges that ButcherBox violated California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL") by purportedly: failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures required by law; and failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and cancellation instructions in a form capable of being retained by the consumer.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda H. Russo, Esq. Lora J. Krsulich, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: +1 213 426 2500 Fax: +1 213 623 1673 Email: FaARusso@goodwinlaw.com LKrsulich@goodwinlaw.com C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC. The case is styled as Nicefore Flores, individually, and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003097 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC -- https://www.cswg.com/ -- is a leader in food solutions across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com CAFE OLYMPIA: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS ANGEL SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ, CELERINO ZAMORA SIDOA and MANUEL ALEJANDRO FRANCISO MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAFE OLYMPIA 55, INC., and HYE YUNG CHU and YEON CHU, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03406 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2026) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours, unlawful deductions from wages, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants at Cafe Olympia 55, Inc. as a delivery worker, food preparer, customer service worker, and cleaner, while performing related miscellaneous duties, from in or around January 2013 until in or around September 2025. Cafe Olympia 55, Inc. is a restaurant based in New York.[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 CHURCH STREET: Slaven Seeks Initial OK of $495K Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDACE SLAVEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CHURCH STREET RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES OF SARATOGA, LLC D/B/A 15 CHURCH, ROBERT PEZULICH & THOMAS BURKE II, Case No. 1:25-cv-00227-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. The Defendants have agreed to pay up to a total gross Settlement Amount of $495,000 to resolve this lawsuit. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, counsel for Plaintiffs will petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees, amounting to no more than of no more than One Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($165,000.00) and costs of no more than $2,482. Slaven filed the initial Complaint on Feb. 19, 2025. The Plaintiff was a server, bartender, and hostess at 15 Church from Oct. 20, 2023 to Sept. 17, 2024. 15 Church is a restored historic restaurant in the heart of Saratoga Springs, NY. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ffEZa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ananda Chaudhuri, Esq. FILIPPATOS PLLC 425 Madison Avenue, Suite 1502 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (914) 984-1111 E-mail: achaudhuri@filippatoslaw.com - and - Joseph T. Moen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH T. MOEN 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Telephone: (518) 588-0316 E-mail: joe@jtmoenlaw.com CLINICAL MEDIA LLC: Nunez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clinical Media LLC. The case is styled as Steven Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clinical Media LLC doing business as: Care Health Source, Case No. 1:26-cv-03436 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Clinical Media LLC doing business as Care Health -- https://app.carehealthsource.com/ -- is a platform that connects individuals with healthcare options and innovative treatment plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com CME GROUP: Post-Trial Motions Pending in Court ---------------------------------------------- CME Group 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 24, 2026, that a putative class action complaint was filed on January 15, 2014, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against CME Group Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. The plaintiffs, certain Class B shareholders of CME Group and Class B members of CBOT, allege breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for violations of their core rights granted in the defendants respective Certificates of Incorporation. On December 2, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs motion for certification of a damages-only class. In early 2024, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. On April 16, 2025, the court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, and set the remaining claims for a jury trial. After a three-week trial, on July 25, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. Plaintiffs have filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial, and the plaintiffs might appeal the verdict should the post-trial motions be denied. CME Group Inc. operates one of the world's leading derivatives marketplaces, offering futures and options across major asset classes including interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, energy, agricultural commodities and metals. The company provides trading, clearing, risk management and information services to financial institutions, corporations, and individual investors globally. COMMUNITY VETERINARY: Diamond Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Veterinary Clinics, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Amanda Diamond, and all persons similarly situated v. Community Veterinary Clinics, LLC, PetIQ, LLC, Does 1 - 50, Case No. 26CV009787 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Community Veterinary Clinic -- https://www.communityveterinaryclinic.com/ -- offers affordable, preventative healthcare for pets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Jetton Cybersecurity Suit Removed to W.D. Ark. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled STEVE JETTON, on behalf of himself and all other Arkansas citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 66FCV-26-462-VI, was removed from the Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on April 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02059-DCF to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Conduent acted tortiously in connection with a cybersecurity incident involving the Company that occurred between October 21, 2024 and January 13, 2025. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that his personal information was compromised during the cyber incident and asserts three causes of action against Conduent: (1) negligence; (2) intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy; and (3) declaratory judgment. Conduent Business Services, LLC provides business process services. The Company offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: E.B. Chiles IV, Esq. R. Ryan Younger, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 Facsimile: (501) 379-1701 E-mail: cchiles@qgtlaw.com ryounger@qgtlaw.com CONNIE JACKSON: Trans Union Suit Transferred to W.D.N.C. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Trans Union Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Connie L. Jackson, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, Case No. 9:25-mc-81311 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on April 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-mc-00046-MEO-DCK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erica Ann Neyer Kramer, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 9431 Bradmore Lane, Suite 201 Ooltewah, TN 37363 Phone: (423) 834-0941 - and - Erik M. Kosa, Esq. Jennifer L. Sarvadi, Esq. HUDSON COOK, LLP 1909 K Street NW, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 715-2007 The Defendants are represented by: Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Brett E. Dressler, Esq. SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, PA 301 S. McDowell Rd, Suite 410 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 377-5050 Fax: (704) 339-0172 Email: bdressler@sellersayers.com - and - Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC 626 East Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 905-9900 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: drew@clalegal.com - and - Stephen Leigh Flores, Esq. FLORES LAW, PLLC 530 E. Main St., Ste. 800 Richmond, VA 23219-2428 Phone: (804) 238-9911 Email: stephen@floreslawva.com CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- 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 United States District Court for the Western District of New York stayed the consolidated Silva and Mason derivative suit pending the entry of a final judgment in Meza class suit. In addition, on March 24, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York captioned Silva v. Newlands, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-254 (W.D.N.Y.); on April 21, 2025, a second purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York captioned Mason v. Newlands, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00353 (W.D.N.Y.); and on June 24, 2025, a third purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Wasserman v. Baldwin, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-779 (D. Del.). These derivative complaints each seek to assert claims arising under the Exchange Act and state common law, derivatively on behalf of the Company, against current and former directors and officers of the Company. None of the plaintiffs made a pre-suit demand on the Company’s Board of Directors, instead each alleging that the pre-suit demand requirement should be excused as purportedly futile. The claims asserted in these derivative complaints arise from substantially the same allegations made in the first Meza complaint. On May 27, 2025, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York entered an order consolidating the Silva and Mason litigations and staying proceedings pending the entry of a final judgment in Meza. On August 8, 2025, the plaintiff in the Wasserman litigation filed a notice and proposed order voluntarily dismissing that litigation, which was so ordered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August 14, 2025. 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. DAVID EVANS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dickinson Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH DICKINSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID EVANS ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00802-AR (D. Ore., April 23, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and who were impacted in a data breach that occurred on February 27, 2026, and for which Defendant notified impacted individuals on April 10, 2026. The Defendant collects their employees' and clients' private information, including their names, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, and driver's license numbers, as well as financial account information to provide employment and engineering services and as part of their business practices. In the data breach, the Defendant lost control over Plaintiff's and Class Member's private information due to their insufficiently protected computer systems, resulting in unauthorized third parties having unfettered access to those systems and, upon information and belief, the exfiltration of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. The data breach was the direct result of Defendant's failures to adequately protect and secure their employees' and others' private information in accordance with industry standards, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. David Evans Enterprises, Inc. runs a consulting engineering services business through their subsidiary, David Evans and Associates, Inc., which is based in Portland, Oregon and has additional offices in California, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Texas, Utah, and Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com gmullens@stranchlaw.com DEL MONTE CAPITOL: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leticia Pareja Martinez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DEL MONTE CAPITOL MEAT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ALLEN BROTHERS 1893, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE WEST COAST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. C26-00390 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03267. The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Defendants: failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; unfair and unlawful business practices; and penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. Alexander W. Simon, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: mbeilke@seyfarth.com jtrankiem@seyfarth.com asimon@seyfarth.com DELAWARE NORTH: Lenahan Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled AARON LENAHAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; CALIFORNIA SPORTSERVICE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CU007921C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02606-AJB-MSB to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. Delaware North Companies, Incorporated provides hospitality and food services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com bpelliconi@seyfarth.com DINE BRANDS GLOBAL: Guidotti Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Nicole Guidotti and Aaron Salazar, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. DINE BRANDS GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 26CV175996 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03288. The Plaintiffs assert six causes of action: invasion of privacy; intrusion upon seclusion; violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); violation of CIPA, Cal. Pen. Code Section 638.51; fraud; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brandon P. Reilly, Esq. Kyla Nunez, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 714.338.2701 Facsimile: 714.371.2550 Email: BReilly@manatt.com KNunez@manatt.com DOGTOPIA ENTERPRISES: Spechler Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dogtopia Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as David Spechler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dogtopia Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61131-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Dogtopia -- https://www.dogtopia.com/ -- is the leading provider of dog daycare in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 1650 SE 17th Street 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 333162 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com DOW CHEMICAL: Derivative Actions Stayed --------------------------------------- Dow Chemical Co 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 24, 2026, that a putative securities class action was filed on August 29, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 31, 2026, an amended complaint was filed naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the company's ability to sustain its dividend, which allegedly caused its securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Additionally, four putative shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on September 5, 2025, September 11, 2025, September 18, 2025, and November 21, 2025, which are based on alleged facts and circumstances similar to the above-referenced securities class action, and name certain of the company's officers, including its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its Chief Operating Officer, and members of its Board of Directors, as defendants. The derivative actions assert claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims, and seek to recover damages on behalf of the Company. All of the derivative actions either have been stayed or are seeking a stay pending resolution of the securities class action. Dow Chemical Co., a subsidiary of Dow Inc., is a global materials science company that manufactures and supplies chemicals, plastics and advanced materials for packaging, infrastructure, mobility and consumer markets worldwide. The company operates production sites around the globe with a focus on performance materials, industrial intermediates and coatings. DRUMMAC INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drummac, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alma Garcia, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Drummac, Inc., Moran Environmental Recovery, LLC, Case No. 26CUB01481 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 17, 2026). The case type is not stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Drummac Inc. -- https://www.drummac.com/ -- provides mechanical maintenance, inspections, repairs and cleaning in the transportation industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com EAGLE FAMILY: Removes Argueta Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JESSICA ARGUETA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE FAMILY FOODS GROUP LLC d/b/a HAMBURGER HELPER, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 25STCV31437) 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-03822. The case is assigned to Stephen V Wilson and referred to Magistrate A Joel Richlin. Eagle Family Foods Group LLC provides packaged dairy products. The Company produces and markets canned sweetened condensed and evaporated milk products. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Abby H. Meyer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail ameyer@sheppardmullin.com - and - Julia C. Anderson, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E mail juanderson@sheppardmullin.com EDWARD JONES: Dixon Seeks Conditional Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE DIXON, et al., v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00284-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion to conditionally certify the following collective for purposes of notice distribution: "All current and former female Financial Advisors ("FAs") employed by Edward Jones from March 9, 2019 to the present (the "Collective")." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court direct notice of the pendency of this lawsuit to the proposed Collective. Plaintiff submits that this case is of considerable public importance as it concerns fundamental public policy central to the Equal Pay Act and its guarantee of a workplace free from gender-based wage discrimination. In addition, the Plaintiffs believe an opportunity to answer questions regarding the substantial factual record and legal issues would assist the Court in determining whether conditional collective certification is appropriate. Edward is a North American financial services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AJdly0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan A. Kane, Esq. 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 kane@stuevesiegel.com - and - Christi J. Hilker, Esq. Amy M. Fowler, Esq. HF LAW FIRM LLC 3101 W. 86th St. Leawood, KS 66206 Telephone: (816) 739-0107 Facsimile: (913) 426-9181 E-mail: christi@hflawfirmllc.com amy@hflawfirmllc.com - and - Adam T. Klein, Esq. Nantiya Ruan, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com nr@outtengolden.com cyoung@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com EDWARD JONES: Dixon Seeks to Certify Financial Advisor Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE DIXON, et al., v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00284-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All current and former female Financial Advisors ("FAs") employed by Edward Jones from May 13, 2021, to the present." The Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), or in the alternative, certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of the named Plaintiff as class representative and appointment of George A. Hanson and Adam Klein as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). The Plaintiff submits that this case is of considerable public importance as it concerns fundamental public policy central to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and its guarantee of a workplace free from gender discrimination. In addition, the Plaintiff believes an opportunity to answer questions regarding the substantial factual record and legal issues would assist the Court in determining whether class certification is appropriate. Edward is a North American financial services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EHzJLk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan A. Kane, Esq. 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 kane@stuevesiegel.com - and - Christi J. Hilker, Esq. Amy M. Fowler, Esq. HF LAW FIRM LLC 3101 W. 86th St. Leawood, KS 66206 Telephone: (816) 739-0107 Facsimile: (913) 426-9181 E-mail: christi@hflawfirmllc.com amy@hflawfirmllc.com - and - Adam T. Klein, Esq. Nantiya Ruan, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com nr@outtengolden.com cyoung@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com ELIGO ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in Orzolek Suit Due Feb. 2, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ORZOLEK, v. ELIGO ENERGY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00078-SDM-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge S. Courter M. Shimeall entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than June 19, 2026. -- Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by Oct. 16, 2026. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by Dec. 16, 2026. -- Any Motion for Class Certification is due by Feb. 2, 2027. -- All discovery shall be completed by Jan. 20, 2027. -- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by Jan. 8, 2027. The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on April 7, 2026, and the Court conducted a telephonic preliminary pretrial conference on April 22, 2026. Eligo operates as a retail energy supplier company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oMKGAD at no extra charge.[CC] ELLIOTT-LEWIS CORP: Giambrone Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC GIAMBRONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELLIOTT-LEWIS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02710 (E.D. Pa., April 24, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a data breach incident. On February 18, 2026, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity on its computer systems. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine what had occurred. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. 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 and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their private information; the loss or diminished value of their private information as a result of the data breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, notes the complaint. Elliott-Lewis Corporation is a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration service company that provides maintenance, repair, operation engineering, design and installation services, and energy solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ENSURETY VENTURES: Campbell Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ensurety Ventures LLC. The case is styled as Mary Ann Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ensurety Ventures LLC doing business as: Omega Auto Care, Case No. 4:26-cv-00387-LPR (E.D. Ark., April 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ensurety Ventures LLC doing business as Omega Auto Care -- https://omegaautocare.com/ -- covers additional costs entailed when a vehicle's covered parts and systems require repairs beyond those covered by the factory warranty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Zach Ryburn, Esq. RYBURN LAW FIRM 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 228-8100 Email: zach@ryburnlawfirm.com EVOLUTIONS HAIR: Initial Case Management Conference Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA WAHAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EVOLUTIONS HAIR SALON, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05641-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order scheduling initial case management conference. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. It appears to the Court that defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to the First Amended Complaint. Defendant must do so no later than May 8, 2026. It appears to the Court that no initial case management and scheduling conference has yet taken place in this action. It is therefore ORDERED that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on May 27, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., No later than May 20, 2026, one week prior to the conference, the parties must file a Pre-Conference Statement, via ECF, signed by counsel for all parties. The Defendant is a full service salon. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dJGRRa at no extra charge.[CC] EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Seeks to Certify Class of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENDI YOSHIKAWA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, LIAM M. MALLON, and MELISSA BOND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a Class of investors who purchased the common stock of Exxon Mobil Corporation during the period of March 5, 2019 to Jan. 15, 2021, inclusive; -- Appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and -- Approving their selection of counsel Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. ("G&E") and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") as Class Counsel. Certification of this action on behalf of a Class will provide a critical step to ensuring the ability of investors to recover their losses. The case presents strong claims on behalf of a Class that suffered significant damages following reports that Defendants had engaged in a fraudulent scheme. The Defendants allegedly misled investors into believing that Exxon would be able to extract, develop and market more natural resources from its assets located in the southwestern United States than was possible based on data available to Exxon. Exxon is an oil and gas company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6aoyi2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. John J. Esmay, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. Michael M. Mathai, Esq. Stephen Boscolo, 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: johnr@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com john.esmay@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com michael.mathai@blbglaw.com stephen.boscolo@blbglaw.com - and - Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Lauren J. Salamon, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: cmoyna@gelaw.com lsalamon@gelaw.com - and - Lewis T. LeClair, Esq. McKOOL SMITH PC 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com FABLETICS INC: Brodbeck Sues Over Unlawful Tariffs -------------------------------------------------- Robert Brodbeck and Ajani Hoffert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FABLETICS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-04487-WLH-AJR (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2026), is brought arising from Fabletics' retention of windfall profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). Fabletics charged a separate tariff surcharge that was visible on customers' receipts. As a consequence of that decision, importers who paid those tariffs--including Fabletics--became entitled to refunds of the duties they previously paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"). Fabletics therefore collected the tariff costs from consumers through its tariff surcharge, while seeking refunds of the same tariff payments from the federal government. Unless restrained by this Court, Fabletics stands to recover the same tariff payments twice—once from consumers and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds. Fabletics has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff related surcharges to the consumers who actually paid them. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Fabletics during the tariff period and who paid tariff surcharges reflecting Fabletics' pass-through of unlawful tariffs. The Plaintiffs seek restitution of those tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased goods from Fabletics that were imported from countries subject to the IEEPA tariffs. Fabletics, founded in 2013, is a prominent player in the activewear and sportswear industry, specializing in affordable, high-quality apparel for both men and women.[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 Phone: 916.823.6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (516) 515-9124 Email: jdennett@milberg.com FAYETTE RESOURCES: Whitehurst Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Darren Whitehurst, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FAYETTE RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00709 (W.D. Pa., April 27, 2026) to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Uniontown, Pennsylvania and worked for Defendant from April 2007 through November 2025. The Defendant is in the business of "serving adults and children with disabilities" through residential living, community participation, and behavioral services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com FCA US: "9-Speed Automatic Transmission" False, Gonzalez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR GONZALEZ, STUART GLICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC dba STELLANTIS NORTH AMERICA, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04407 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law as they falsely advertised and represented to Plaintiffs and other customers their Class Vehicle's transmission to a "9-Speed Automatic Transmission." As part of the marketing for the Class Vehicle, Stellantis represented to consumers that the model had been upgraded from a six-speed transmission to a "New 9-Speed Automatic Transmission." However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Class Vehicle was not capable of engaging the eighth or ninth gears -- the Class Vehicle's automatic software does not allow it to engage those gears. This is because the Class Vehicle's design is too big and boxy, and thus the Class Vehicle's software will never detect a situation in which engaging those gears is beneficial to its performance. As a result, the Class Vehicle functionally only has a seven-speed transmission, not the advertised nine-speed, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered damages because of Stellantis' false representations, omissions, and concealments about the Class Vehicles. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were induced to purchase, lease, or retain Class Vehicles under the reasonable but mistaken belief that they had an improved nine-speed automatic transmission. Instead, they received vehicles that would only shift to the seventh gear, and which did not perform better than Defendant's previous six-gear models. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class Members lost the benefit of their bargain. FCA US LLC, dba Stellantis North America, designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Masinas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Express Corporation. The case is styled as Anthony Masinas, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public v. Federal Express Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002898 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." FedEx Corporation -- https://www.fedex.com/ -- originally known as Federal Express Corporation, is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com FIVE POINT: Settlement Reached in Bayview Action ------------------------------------------------ Five Point Holdings, LLC 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 24, 2026, that in February 2026, the parties to a 2018 class action entered into a settlement agreement, which includes $10.8 million in damages to be paid out of insurance proceeds under a joint insurance policy held by the Company and Lennar, as well as a dismissal with prejudice to be entered on behalf of the company. The settlement amount is expected to be funded in full by the insurance policy. Payment of the settlement and dismissal of the lawsuit are conditioned upon delivery of releases from the approximately 6,500 plaintiffs in the Bayview Action. There can be no assurance that such releases will be delivered timely, or at all, or that the settlement will take effect as described above. In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard (Tetra Tech), Lennar and the company as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and the company and have requested an injunction to prevent the company and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard. Five Point Holdings, LLC is a California-based real estate development company that designs and develops mixed-use, master-planned communities in coastal California markets. Company projects integrate residential, commercial, retail and recreational uses in large-scale urban and suburban settings. FORD MOTOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order granting the motion for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification. The Court further orders that: (1) The plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification within 30 days of the resolution of the pending expert motions; and (2) The defendant shall file its response thereto 30 days thereafter; and (3) The plaintiffs shall file their reply 14 days thereafter. The Defendant is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f4r4PG at no extra charge.[CC] FUENTES&FUENTES CORP: Barillas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Barillas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUENTES&FUENTES CORP., NILSON ARGUETA (a/k/a NIXON ARGUETA, a/k/a NIXON ARGUTA, a/k/a NICK ARGUETA), and LETICIA MELARA, Case No. 2:26-cv-02310 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the supporting regulations. The Defendants paid Plaintiff the same hourly rate for hours under 40 and hours over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at one and one-half times his regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours compensation for days on which his spread of hours exceeded ten (10) hours. Because the Defendants failed to provide a compliant wage notice, the Plaintiff was deprived of statutorily required pay information in writing and was hindered in recognizing and contesting the Defendants' underpayments in time to obtain prompt correction and payment. Had the Defendants provided a compliant wage notice, the Plaintiff would have been better able to understand his pay entitlements, identify the employing entity and applicable rates, and challenge Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation and spread-of-hours pay sooner, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in a non-exempt deli/restaurant position. The Defendants owned, operated, managed, and/or controlled the deli/restaurant known as La Libertad Del.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor, Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com GAP INC: Bazabal Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Juan Bazabal, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. THE GAP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU009708C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on April 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02667-H-AHG. The Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of a federal law--i.e., violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the "Federal Wiretap Act"). The Plaintiff asserts the following five causes of action on behalf of himself and the putative class: violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); violations of the Federal Wiretap Act; violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Penal Code; Invasion of Privacy under Art. 1, § 1 of the California Constitution; and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Roth, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Samuel C. Cortina, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 Email: mroth@kslaw.com lkiser@kslaw.com scortina@kslaw.com GEORGIA HERITAGE: Leslie Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Fredrick Leslie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union, Case No. SPCV26-00652-MO (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., April 27, 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 GOOD DOG: Parties Seek More Time to File Conditional Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADA ROUNDS AND SHAYLA BROOKS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. GOOD DOG BAD DOG MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a ATLANTA CANDYLAND a/k/a CANDYLAND, HAROLD JOSEPH BROCKHOEFT, ANDRE SPRIGGS, AND TAUHEED K. EPPS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01250-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs and the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and issuance of court-authorized notice for an additional seven days up to and through April 23, 2026. Counsel for the Defendants have had an unusually busy caseload since the filing of the Plaintiffs' motion, including being out of state visiting family. The Plaintiffs' motion is a substantive motion that will greatly impact the scope of this case that requires substantive work by the Defendants' counsel. The Consent Motion is made in good faith, and the parties to this action will not be prejudiced by the requested extension, the suit says. Candyland is an adult entertainment club. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g5UA1c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 523-5864 E-mail: jrose@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey A. Powell, Esq. POWELL LAW, LLC 6075 Barfield Road, Suite 227 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 273-3970 - and - Alan Begner, Esq. BEGNER & BEGNER, P.C 6075 Barfield Road, Suite 207 Atlanta, GA 30328 E-mail: ABegner@begnerlaw.com GOYA FOODS: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goya Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04681 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://shop.goya.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Walker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 26, 2026, Plaintiff Walker was searching online for canned beans for delivery to her home. During her search, she came across Defendant's website and decided to further explore it with the intent of placing an order. However, while navigating using her screen reader software, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to complete the purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Walker and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Walker 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. Goya Foods, Inc. operates the website that offers Latin-inspired products, including beans, rice, and grains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law GUARANTEED HOME: Court OKs "Ocampo" Conditional Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Luis Alberto Ocampo and Carlos Jiminez, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Guaranteed Home Improvement LLC, Justin Romano, Abraham Finkler, and Ricardo Martinez, individually, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-6980 (SJB) (AYS) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motion to proceed as a conditional collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Memorandum and Opinion was issued on April 22, 2026. Defendant Guaranteed Home Improvement LLC is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plainview, New York, operating a chimney service business with clients throughout the New York metropolitan area. Defendants Romano, Finkler, and Martinez are the co-owners of GHI, with Martinez operating as the manager, and together they were responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations, including hiring, firing, and determining employees' rates and methods of pay. Plaintiff Ocampo was employed by Defendants, first as a non-managerial helper and then as a chimney technician, from approximately June 2020 through March 12, 2024. Throughout his employment, he was regularly required to work six days per week, Monday through Saturday, from 7:00 a.m. to at least 8:00 p.m., totaling at least seventy-eight hours per week, and was paid a flat weekly salary ranging from $975.00 to $1,200.00, plus a non-discretionary bonus generally ranging from $300.00 to $600.00,with the average bonus being approximately $500.00 per week. Plaintiff Jiminez was employed as a non-managerial helper from November 13, 2023 through February 13, 2024, working eighty-four hours per week for a flat weekly salary of $975.00. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the FLSA by willfully failing to pay them and putative collective members overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. Additional claims were brought under the New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum wages, spread-of-hours violations, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements and notices. The Court applied the Second Circuit's two-step analysis for collective certification. At the conditional stage, the evidentiary standard is lenient, and Plaintiffs need only make a modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential opt-in Plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The Court found that Plaintiffs set forth sufficient facts to support the showing that Defendants' non-managerial chimney technicians and helpers were all subject to common compensation and timekeeping practices, and routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate overtime compensation. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a common unlawful compensation policy, but submitted only a letter brief from their counsel, in direct contravention of the Court's September 18, 2025 Order directing that any opposition be made by formal motion including memoranda of law and supporting affidavits. The Court found Defendants' opposition unavailing. On the scope of notice, the Court declined the requested six-year notice period, finding it inappropriate where the motion sought certification only under the FLSA. The Court authorized notice for the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint, from October 2, 2021 to the present. The certified collective consists of all current and former non-managerial employees of Defendants who at any time between October 2, 2021 and the present performed any work as chimney technicians, helpers, or in a similar role. Notice is to be disseminated via mail and text message, in English, Spanish, and any other identified primary language of potential collective members, with reminder notices issued thirty days after the initial notice and a sixty-day opt-in period. Defendants are directed to post the Court-approved notice at GHI's warehouse at 500 Old Bethpage Road in Plainview, New York, and to provide Plaintiffs with the names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, primary languages spoken, and dates of employment of all potential collective members within 14 days of the Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=77v427 from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Guaranteed Home Improvement LLC, Abraham Finkler, Ricardo Martinez, and Justin Romano are represented by: Peter W. Till, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER W. TILL Email: pwt@till-law.com Plaintiffs Luis Alberto Ocampo and Carlos Jimenez are represented by: Philip Maldari, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Yuezhu Liu, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. Email: pjm@employmentlawyernewyork.com atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com liu.yuezhu1@gmail.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com HANDI-FOIL CORP: Cazaldo Files Suit in W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Handi-Foil Corp. The case is styled as Daniel Behar Cazaldo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Handi-Foil Corp., Case No. 6:26-cv-06442 (W.D.N.Y., April 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Handi-foil Corporation -- https://www.handi-foil.com/ -- is a privately owned manufacturer of aluminum products committed to quality, convenience and innovation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 261 Westchester Avenue Tuckahoe, NY 10707 Phone: (646) 342-2019 Email: robert@kraselnik.com HEWITT'S GARDEN: All Discovery Due Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patricia Marx, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Hewitt's Garden Centers, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00073-AJB-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katz entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before May 20, 2026. Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before May 20, 2026. All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before Oct. 15, 2026. Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by Aug. 20, 2026. The Defendant is an independent garden center. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YmthPF at no extra charge.[CC] HIGHWOOD USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Deinnocentes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Highwood USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00549 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://highwood-usa.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 20, 2026, the Plaintiff searched online for outdoor furniture and came across 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 the keyboard and screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. The suit asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Deinnocentes seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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. Highwood USA, LLC operates the website that offers outdoor furniture and home and garden products, including dining sets, chairs, benches, tables, porch swings, mailbox posts, and garden planters.[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 HOMEOWNER SOLUTION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 25, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS KING, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. HOMEOWNER SOLUTION PROS INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00256-RGA (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Richard Andrews entered an amended scheduling order as follows: a. All motions to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings shall be filed on or before June 21, 2026. b. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification by Jan. 25, 2027. c. The Plaintiff shall disclose experts in support of class certification by Jan. 25, 2027. d. The Defendant shall file its opposition to class certification by Mar. 1, 2027. e. The Defendant shall disclose experts in opposition to class certification by Mar. 1, 2027. f. The Plaintiff shall file her reply in support of class certification by Mar. 29, 2027. g. All fact discovery shall be initiated so that it will be completed by Nov. 12, 2027. Homeowner is a real estate investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rKTtKh at no extra charge.[CC] HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due July 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order granting the stipulation to further extend expert disclosure and motion for class certification filing deadlines as follows: Event Date Deadline to designate experts related May 22, 2026 to class certification: Deadline for supplemental expert June 22, 2026 designation related to class certification: Deadline to file motion for class July 1, 2026 certification: Hyatt is a global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LhtWiz at no extra charge.[CC] IMPERFECT FOODS: Removes Brown Jr. Suit to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of PHILLIP JAMES BROWN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMPERFECT FOODS, INC.; IMPERFECT FOODS; MISFITS MARKET; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (Case No. 26CV486205) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 13, 2026. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03144. The case is assigned to Noel Wise and referred to Magistrate Susan Van Keulen. Imperfect Foods, Inc. operates as a groceries and food products. The Company offers fruits and vegetables, pantry, snacks, produce, dairy, plant based, meat and fish, wellness, and other related products. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven A. Groode, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 Email: sgroode@littler.com - and - Annureet K. Bezwada, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, California 93704-2225 Telephone: (559) 244-7500 Facsimile: (559) 244-7525 Email: abezwada@littler.com JACK PHELAN CHEVROLET: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Phelan Chevrolet, Inc. The case is styled as Torrance Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jack Phelan Chevrolet, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04328 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Jack Phelan Chevrolet, Inc. -- https://www.jackphelanchevy.info/ -- are a family-owned and operated car and truck dealership in Lyons serving Chicago, Berwyn and Burbank, Illinois customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com JEBEDIAH S. CHRISTY: Leka Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Silvio Leka, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JEBEDIAH S. CHRISTY, D.D.S., P.C., and ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2684CV00932 was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-11801. The Plaintiff claims he and others similarly situated (at least 40 Massachusetts employees) did not receive their final wages on the date of their involuntary termination, but instead were paid final wages after the statutorily required date. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, by failing to pay him his earned wages timely over the three-year limitations period provided by the Wage Act. The Plaintiff seeks to recover treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Wage Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric B. Mack, Esq. Michael Stefanilo Jr., Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617.378.6000 Email: emack@littler.com mstefanilo@littler.com JEROME HARRIS: Class Settlement in Alexander Gets Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (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=rmKYQM at no extra charge.[CC] KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL: Sohal Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Martin Sohal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company; DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CV-26-000694 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00654. The Plaintiff asserts five claims based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Labor Code by: failing to pay all wages and minimum wages in violation of Labor Codes; failing to timely pay wages during employment in violation of Labor Code; failing to pay all wages upon discharge in violation of Labor Codes; and failing to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code and failing to maintain accurate records in violation of Labor Code. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that these violations constitute unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com - and - Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Daniel D. Spencer, Esq. Jamar D. Davis, Esq. Kenny T. Tran, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7448 Fax: +1 213 689 7401 Email: jariley@duanemorris.com dspencer@duanemorris.com jddavis@duanemorris.com ktran@duanemorris.com KRISTI NOEM: Swaso Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kyron Shakeel Swaso v. Kristi Noem et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-00980-MRA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stevenson entered an order: (1) denying the Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice; (2) denying the Petitioner's motion for class certification; and (3) granting the Petitioner an extension of time to file a response to the Court's March 18, 2026, order to show cause. The Petitioner -- a seasoned litigant who has filed and litigated two other federal actions -- fails to identify a reason at this stage of these proceedings that would necessitate the Court appointing counsel to represent him. To date, the Court has not received Petitioner's response to the Order to Show Cause. However, in the interests of justice, the Court, sua sponte, grants Petitioner an extension of time to file his response on or before May 14, 2026. Petitioner is warned that the failure to file a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause by the extended deadline will result in a recommendation of dismissal. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zDZoT4 at no extra charge.[CC] KUNES CHEVROLET GMC: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kunes Chevrolet GMC of Elkhorn, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kunes Chevrolet GMC of Elkhorn, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00669 (E.D. Wis., April 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Kunes Chevrolet GMC of Elkhorn -- https://kunesgm.com/ -- is a leading automotive dealership located in Elkhorn, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com LEVI STRAUSS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Whitfield Due Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE WHITFIELD, v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO, Case No. 3:26-cv-01300-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered a case scheduling order as follows: Event Date Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Mar. 23, 2027 at and Motion for Decertification of FLSA 10 a.m. Collective (if applicable): Reply in Support of Motion for Feb. 26, 2027 Decertification of FLSA Collective (if applicable): Reply in Support of Class Certification; Jan. 29, 2027 Opposition to Motion for Decertification of FLSA Collective and Expert Disclosures re Same (if applicable): Opposition to Class Certification; Motion for Dec. 18, 2026 Decertification of FLSA Collective (if applicable); Expert Disclosures re Both: Motion for Class Certification and Expert Nov. 13, 2026 Disclosures in Support of Class Certification: Motion for Notice to FLSA Collective May 12, 2026 (opposition and reply briefing schedule per Local Rules): Dispositive motions, merits expert discovery, and pretrial and trial dates to be set via CMC after order on class certification and, if applicable, decertification of the FLSA collective is issued. The Defendant is an American clothing company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zErMu0 at no extra charge.[CC] LEVI STRAUSS: Court Narrows Claims in Whitfield Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE WHITFIELD, v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO, Case No. 3:26-cv-01300-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss Whitfield's overtime claim under Nevada state law is granted, and the motion to dismiss all other claims is denied. Dismissal is with leave to amend. If Whitfield wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies identified above, he shall do so by May 11, 2026. If no such amended complaint is filed by that date, the claims that were dismissed in this Order will remain dismissed, and the case will proceed on the surviving claims only. At the hearing on the motion, Whitfield's counsel agreed that the overtime claim must be dismissed if it is preempted by the LMRA given the CBAs' mandatory grievance procedures. Therefore, the motion to dismiss this claim is granted. At the hearing, Whitfield's counsel indicated that if the claim were to be dismissed, Whitfield would request leave to amend to add allegations that the CBAs' grievance procedures violated the unions' duty to fairly represent him. Because the record does not establish that such an amendment would be futile, dismissal is with leave to amend. Accordingly, Levi Strauss argues that the scope of the collective should be limited to the Henderson distribution center. That challenge is not properly brought as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Instead, a challenge to the scope of the FLSA collective is more properly addressed in adjudicating a motion for notice to the collective, where Whitfield would be entitled to provide evidence beyond the allegations of the complaint supporting a common practice extending beyond the Henderson location. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this claim is denied. The Plaintiff Jermaine Whitfield brings this putative class and collective action against the Defendant, asserting various wage and hour claims under Nevada state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant is an American clothing company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uc4TYs at no extra charge.[CC] LIFE EMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brace Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BRACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE EMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01186 (W.D. Mich., April 13, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brace was employed by the Defendant as a paramedic. Life EMS Inc. specializes in emergency and non-emergency medical transportation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. Kara F. Krause, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St. STE 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (844) 487-9489 Email: kara@hurwitzlaw.com noah@hurwitzlaw.com LIFE LINE SCREENING: Rupert Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Rupert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFE LINE SCREENING OF AMERICA, LTD., an Ohio limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00953 (N.D. Ohio, April 22, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The Plaintiff and other Advisors typically worked at least 40 hours per workweek and frequently worked overtime. The Defendant compensated Plaintiff and all its Advisors on an hourly basis and classified them as non-exempt employees under the FLSA. The Defendant failed to compensate its Advisors, like Plaintiff, for all work performed. Instead, Defendant required its Advisors to perform compensable work before and after their scheduled shifts, as well as during their designated meal periods, when they are not clocked-in to Defendant's timekeeping system. This corporate policy and practice results in Advisors not being paid for all time worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly Preventative Health Advisor in March 2025. The Defendant is a healthcare provider that performs preventative health screenings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4055 Email: pkennedy@sommerspc.com LIMITLESS X INC: Quinn Files Suit in D. Oregon ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Crew Group, LLC. The case is styled as Morgan Quinn, a Oregon resident; Jorge Delgadillo, a Florida resident; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Limitless X Inc.; Limitless X Holdings, Inc.; Limitless Performance Inc.; Case No. 3:26-cv-00794-AN (D. Ore., April 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Limitless X Holdings Inc. -- https://www.limitlessx.com/ -- is a multinational consumer packaged goods company, engages in developing and offering products in the nutrition and beauty industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Ryan Casey, Esq. THE CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC PO Box 2301-417 Silverthorne, CO 80498 Phone: (970) 372-6509 Fax: (970) 372-6482 Email: ryan@rcaseylaw.com LINKEDIN CORP: Melunsky Balks at Illegal Personal Info Disclosure ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLARISSA MELUNSKY, DANA CUTOLO, KATE SHIMSHOCK, MAUREEN CAREY, CAN OZDORUK and SHUBHRANSHU GUPTA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03460 (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who used Defendant LinkedIn Corporation's Learning platform found at linkedin.com/learning The Plaintiffs bring this action in response to Defendant's practice of integrating, installing and embedding third-party tracking technologies from Meta Platforms, Inc. and Adobe Inc. into the website and thereby enabling these third parties to intercept, capture and otherwise obtain, inter alia, users' personally identifiable information, video-watching behavior, communications and related metadata. The Defendant disclosed to third parties Meta and Adobe the PII of Plaintiffs' and members of the Nationwide Video Subclass, asserts the complaint. The Defendant utilized the Meta Pixel and Adobe Audience Manager to compel the web browsers of Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Video Subclass to transfer their identifying information, including their Facebook IDs, along with their event data, including information about the videos they viewed to both Meta and Adobe, adds the complaint. The Defendant's alleged conduct violates the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, relates the complaint. LinkedIn Corporation operates as a social networking web site. The Company offers members to post a profile of their professional expertise and accomplishments on web site. LinkedIn serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 E-mail: scott@drurylegal.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------- Lockheed Martin Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 29, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2026, that a putative class action was filed on July 28, 2025, and subsequently amended on January 12, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain current and former members of its senior management. The shareholder plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2024 and July 21, 2025. Plaintiffs seek unspecified losses allegedly caused by alleged misstatements about certain classified programs in the Aeronautics and MFC business segments and F-35 program, which were allegedly revealed to be false when we announced estimated losses relating to certain of those programs. Additionally, based on allegations substantially similar to the above-described securities class action, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed on September 11, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against current and former members of its Board of Directors and senior management, and the company was named as a nominal defendant. The derivative complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a), 20(a), and 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and contribution. Lockheed Martin Corp is a global security and aerospace company that primarily researches, designs, develops, manufactures, and sustains advanced technology systems, products, and services. The company serves customers worldwide, including U.S. and allied government agencies, across segments such as aeronautics, missiles and fire control, rotary and mission systems, and space. LOWE'S HOME: Class Cert Filing in Lowe Suit Due August 10 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garner v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00475-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Deadline for joining additional parties: June 5, 2026 Deadline for filing motions relating to Aug. 10, 2026 discovery on class certification: Deadline to complete discovery on class Sept. 9, 2026 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion Oct. 9, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file Nov. 6, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply Nov. 20, 2026 in support of motion for class certification: Lowe's retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l9Sydq at no extra charge.[CC] LOWE'S HOME: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Garner Due August 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHRYN GARNER, individually and on behalf or all others similarly situated, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00475-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered an order regarding class certification motion. Deadline for joining additional parties: May 18, 2026 Deadline for filing motions relating to June 10, 2026 discovery on class certification: Deadline to complete discovery on class July 10, 2026 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Aug. 10, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file opposition Sept. 10, 2026 to motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in Sept. 24, 2026 support of motion for class certification: Lowe's retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zNxodA at no extra charge.[CC] LUV CAR WASH GROUP: Sancruzado Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard William Sancruzado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUV CAR WASH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2026LA000029 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-22659-XXXX. The Complaint asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA), and related implementing regulations. The Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, statutory damages and injunctive relief based on alleged telemarketing text messages and alleged failures to honor opt-out requests and do-not-call requirements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: 812-340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com - and - Chad J. Robinson, Esq. YOUR DAMAGE LAWYER, PLLC 382 NE 191st PMB 99460 Miami, FL 33179 Phone: 786-519-2423 Email: chad@chadrobinson.com The Defendant is represented by: Siobhan E.P. Grant, Esq. James T. Ferrara, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 201 East las Olas Blvd., Suite 1450 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-467-7900 Facsimile: 954-467-1024 Email: sgrant@hinshawlaw.com lleon@hinshawlaw.com jferrara@hinshawlaw.com mislacalleiro@hinshawlaw.com MACY'S RETAIL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rheinor Due March 30, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rheinor, v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00285-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: April 24, 2028 Final pretrial conference: March 09, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 12, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: July 20, 2027 Last day to hear motion for class certification: Hearing: June 29, 2027 Reply due: May 12, 2027 Opposition due: April 20, 2027 Motion due: March 30, 2027 Macy's owns and operates department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f9rVvX at no extra charge.[CC] MAGGIE'S GLASTONBURY: Faces Judd Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MEGHAN JUDD and CASSANDRA HORVATH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MAGGIE'S GLASTONBURY, INC. d/b/a MAGGIE MCFLY'S; MAGGIE'S MANCHESTER, INC., d/b/a MAGGY MCFLY'S; MAGGIE MCFLY'S 5, INC., d/b/a MAGGIE MCFLY'S; and MAGGIE'S MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00631 (D. Conn., April 23, 2026) is an action brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid minimum wages, unlawful deductions and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act for Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons who work or have worked for Defendants within the statutory period. The Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants who elect to opt into this action, that they are entitled to: compensation for unpaid wages due to an invalid tip credit; reimbursement of unlawful deductions from wages; liquidated damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the federal and state laws. Plaintiff Judd was employed by Maggie McFly's as a server from approximately February 1, 2024 to September 3, 2024. Maggie's Glastonbury, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation that owns and operates Maggie McFly's, a restaurant with premises located in Glastonbury.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William G. Madsen, Esq. Jennifer C. Messina, Esq. MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC 402 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 246-2466 E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com jmessina@mppjustice.com - and - Louis Pechman, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in GA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Manhattan Associates 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 24, 2026, that it is defending a consolidated securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia arising from two putative class actions filed by alleged Company shareholders. On February 25, 2025, an alleged company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, "Prime v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al., " No. 1:25-cv-00992-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), against the company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under that act, based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants between October 22, 2024, and January 28, 2025. The complaint in the Prime action sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On April 15, 2025, another alleged company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, "City of Orlando Police Officers Pension Fund v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al.," No. 1:25-cv-02089-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), in the same court against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants between July 24, 2024, and February 7, 2025, with factual allegations that were similar to those made in the Prime action. The complaint in the City of Orlando action sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On May 2, 2025, the Court consolidated the two actions into a single proceeding and on May 23, 2025, the Court appointed the plaintiffs in the City of Orlando action as the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On July 22, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, in which the alleged securities law violations are the same as those alleged in the original actions and the proposed class period is the same as in the City of Orlando action. The defendants deny the material allegations in the Consolidated Action, which remains in the early stages and has not yet been certified as a class action, and they intend to defend themselves vigorously. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action on September 22, 2025, and the parties presented oral arguments on that motion on April 9, 2026. The Company maintains insurance that may cover defendants' liability arising out of this litigation up to the policy limits and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions. In addition, on September 22, 2025, a purported company shareholder, Patrick Ayers, filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit, "Ayers v. Capel, et al., " No. 1:25-cv-05416-TRJ, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, naming certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants and asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment, based on allegations that overlap substantially with those in the above-referenced Consolidated Action. On October 14, 2025, the court entered an order staying the Ayers Action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Consolidated Action. Manhattan Associates Inc. is a supply chain and omnichannel commerce technology company that provides software, cloud solutions, and services to help companies manage distribution, transportation, inventory, and retail operations. The company serves customers worldwide across industries including retail, wholesale, manufacturing, and logistics. MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.M.P.C., et al., v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-21565-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leibowitz entered an order referring the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to United States Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez for a report and recommendation consistent with 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. Markwayne Mullin is an American politician and businessman. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dVwcxc at no extra charge.[CC] MARYLAND: T.G. Suit Seeks to Revise Proposed Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., by his next friend, BEVERLY SCHULTERBRANDT, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-MJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to revise the Parties' proposed briefing schedule for class certification. The Plaintiffs request the following revised schedule: a. The Plaintiffs to file their reply to the Defendants' opposition to class certification no later than 30 days after depositions are completed; b. The Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the Defendants' motion to exclude no later than 30 days after depositions are completed; and c. The Defendants to file their reply to the Plaintiffs' oppositions to the Defendants' motion to exclude no later than 29 days after the Plaintiffs' opposition is filed. Good cause exists here because the Plaintiffs require additional time to conduct depositions of the Defendants' experts and to prepare their legal briefs addressing the issue of class certification in this case. On Aug. 29, 2024, the Court issued an order allowing for a period of class discovery, after which the Plaintiffs could renew their class certification motion and the Defendants could respond to it. The Maryland Department is the state's human services provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UwuuyF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Luciene M. Parsley, Esq. Leslie Seid Margolis, Esq. Megan R. Berger, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS MARYLAND 1500 Union Avenue, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (410) 727-6352 Facsimile: (410) 727-6389 E-mail: LucieneP@disabilityrightsmd.org LeslieM@disabilityrightsmd.org Megan.Berger@disabilityrightsmd.org - and - Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq. VENABLE LLP 750 East Pratt Street, 9th Fl. Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 244-7412 Facsimile: (410) 244-7742 E-mail: mymirviss@venable.com MDL 3035: Settlement in Retirement Fund Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation - MDL 3035, Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (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=w4Q0gC at no extra charge.[CC] MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Durbin Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------- Medpace Holdings, 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 23, 2026, that on April 6, 2026, Jan Durbin filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:26-cv-00346) against Medpace Holdings, Inc., August J. Troendle, Jesse J. Geiger, and Kevin M. Brady alleging violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the company's book-to-bill ratio in a scheme to deceive the market based upon Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b). Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys fees, expert fees and other costs. A liability has not been recognized related to this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable. Medpace Holdings, Inc. is a clinical contract research organization that provides comprehensive clinical development services to biopharmaceutical and medical device companies worldwide. MEIJER INC: Court to Narrow Claims in Trout Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN TROUT, v. MEIJER, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01378-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an opinion that it will dismiss all of Trout's claims except for his claim under section 502(a)(3) that Meijer's benefits guides violate the notice requirement in 29 C.F.R. section 2590.702(f)(4)(v). Accordingly, it will also dismiss all claims that accrued before November 5, 2021. Finally, it finds that Trout may seek equitable disgorgement and restitution as long as he meets their respective tracing requirements, but he may not seek surcharge. An order will enter in accordance with this Opinion. Although the question of tracing will ultimately be a factual one, the Court is satisfied at this stage that Trout has sufficiently alleged his entitlement to restitution and disgorgement.13 The Court will grant the motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part. Specifically, the Court finds that (1) Trout has not stated a claim that Meijer violated the requirement that it provide the "full reward" to all similarly situated employees; (2) Trout has stated a claim that Meijer violated the requirement that it make certain disclosures in plan documents; (3) Trout has not stated a claim that Meijer breached its fiduciary duties or engaged in prohibited transactions, nor has he established standing to bring such claims; and (4) claims that accrued before November 5, 2021, are barred by the statute of limitations; and (5) Trout may seek remedies of equitable restitution and disgorgement but not seek surcharge. Plaintiff Justin Trout argues that Meijer’s plan violates several of the Public Health Service Act's (PHSA) requirements. Trout’s proposed class includes employees who paid a tobacco surcharge “from 2014 to the time of judgment.” The Defendant is a grocery store chain that operates throughout the Midwest. A copy of the Court's opinion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ATau5o at no extra charge.[CC] MINDVALLEY INC: Larsen Files Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mindvalley, Inc. The case is styled as Elizanda Larsen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mindvalley, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02426 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mindvalley -- https://www.mindvalley.com/ -- incubates and accelerates businesses that innovate on transformational education for all ages, through mediums that range from digital publishing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. J. BURKETT MCINTURFF 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (910) 476-7253 Email: jbm@wittelslaw.com MINISO GROUP: Amended Securities Suit Dismissed with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- MINISO Group Holding Ltd disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2026, that the company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint, which was granted by the court on March 31, 2026, with prejudice. Plaintiffs have until May 1, 2026, to file a notice to appeal the court decision. A putative federal securities class action in the United States captioned "In re MINISO Group Holding Limited Securities Litigation," 1:22-cv-09864 was file in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2022, a putative federal securities class action was filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging that defendants made misleading misstatements or omissions regarding the company's business operations and financials in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiff was appointed in November 2022 and an amended or operative complaint was filed with the court shortly thereafter. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and the motion was granted by the court in February 2024 with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision in late March 2024, which was rejected by the court. Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on April 30, 2025. MINISO Group Holding Ltd is a global lifestyle retailer offering design-led consumer products across a variety of categories, including home decor, small electronics, toys, beauty, and accessories. The company operates an extensive network of stores worldwide, primarily under the MINISO brand. MNTN INC: Tuthill Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MNTN, Inc. The case is styled as Crystal Tuthill, Gregory Urrutia, Ted Lukowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MNTN, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02600-GPC-MMP (S.D. Cal., April 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. MNTN Performance TV -- - https://mountain.com/ -- is a CTV advertising platform with targeting, measurement, and optimization for amplifying marketers' performance goals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Hindlemann Action over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Molina Healthcare, 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 23, 2026, that a putative securities class action captioned "Hindlemann v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al." was filed on Oct. 3, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer. This was brought on behalf of a putative class who allegedly acquired company securities between Feb. 5, 2025 and July 23, 2025 and asserts violations of federal securities laws relating to its disclosures, including those involving earnings guidance. On Jan. 30, 2026, the court issued an order appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On March 31, 2026, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint and expanded the purported class period from Oct. 23, 2024 to Feb. 6, 2026. Additionally, on Dec. 12, 2025, a shareholder derivative suit captioned "Taylor v. Wolf, et al." was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the company's officers and directors. Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a managed care company that provides Medicaid-related health care services to low-income families and individuals through government-funded programs across the United States. MOLLY MUTT: Deinnocentes Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Molly Mutt, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00550 (N.D. Ind., April 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.mollymutt.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff Deinnocentes was searching online for eco-friendly pet products for her dog's everyday care and comfort. During her search, she discovered the Defendant's website. Encouraged by customers' reviews, she decided to explore the website, where she found the Hypnotize Organic Pet Blanket and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader, Plaintiff Deinnocentes encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to complete the purchase. The complaint asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Deinnocentes seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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. Molly Mutt, LLC operates the website that offers products for dogs, including dog beds, protective covers, pet blankets, toy storages, collars and leashes, and accessories such as crate mats, feeding mats, and travel bedding.[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 MORGAN STANLEY & CO: Elmarouk Sues Over Interception Technologies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Taajudin Elmarouk, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-03434 (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2026), is brought against the Defendant's interception technologies onwww.morganstanley.com (the "Website") in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. During his use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his interest in debt solutions, LGBTQ opportunities and mental illness analysis. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing and/or the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including but not limited to on March 17, 2026. Morgan Stanley provides investment banking, wealth management, and personal finance content and services to consumers and institutional clients nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. (SBN 208436) NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. (SBN 210413) LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: "Gay" Class Counsel Awarded $137K in Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lane Gay, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 4:24-CV-217-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), Judge Sean D. Jordan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted Plaintiff's Amended and Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Award. Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC (MCS) is a nationwide property services provider headquartered in Lewisville, Texas. In December 2023, cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to MCS's computer systems during a data security breach. Plaintiff alleged that the unauthorized actor may have acquired files containing the personally identifiable information (PII) of current and former MCS employees and customers like Gay, including names and Social Security numbers. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against MCS in March 2024, asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence. MCS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed. In March 2025, the parties notified the Court of a joint settlement, finalized in June 2025. The Court held a settlement fairness hearing on February 20, 2026. This is a Rule 23 class action certified for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court certified 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. The class contains approximately 2,943 members. No class members objected to the proposed settlement or requested exclusion from it, and no objections were received in response to the CAFA notice issued to the attorneys general of every U.S. state and territory. The proposed settlement provides several categories of relief. Class members may submit claims for reimbursement of extraordinary out-of-pocket losses of up to $5,000 per claimant for identity fraud and theft-related losses, or ordinary out-of-pocket losses of up to $500 per claimant for expenses incurred because of the Data Incident. Class members who spent time responding to the Data Incident may recover compensation at $25 per hour for up to three hours. Additionally, class members are entitled to two years of credit monitoring, identity theft protection, and $1 million in identity theft insurance, free of charge. MCS is also required to pay the costs of settlement administration, notice, class counsel's attorney's fees and expenses, and Plaintiff's service award. The Court found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under both the Rule 23 and Reed factors. Plaintiff suffered the same alleged injuries as other class members, reducing the likelihood of a conflict of interest. The proposed settlement arose from extensive arm's length negotiations between sophisticated counsel, with no evidence of fraud or collusion. The Court noted that the claims against MCS were hotly contested and difficult to prove and that settling the case avoids the risks and burdens of potentially protracted litigation, including a battle of experts on damages. The Court accorded great weight to class counsel's support for the proposed settlement. The Court found Plaintiff's counsel's request of $137,500 in attorney's fees reasonable under the percentage method, representing less than one percent of the $14.385 million maximum value available to the class, well below the customary range of twenty-five to thirty-three percent. A lodestar cross-check confirmed the reasonableness of the requested fees, reflecting a multiplier of 1.07 times the lodestar amount of $126,782.50. The Court also awarded lead Plaintiff Lane Gay $3,000 for expenses. A Copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YmMLGg from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC is represented by: Matthew Ryan Raley, Esq. Cornelia Brandfield-Harvey, Esq. Chelsea Lamb, Esq. Christopher Wiech, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Email: mraley@bakerlaw.com cbrandfieldharvey@bakerlaw.com clamb@bakerlaw.com cwiech@bakerlaw.com Plaintiff Lane Gay is represented by: Elton Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC Email: cassandram@turkestrauss.com raina@straussborrelli.com NALANE GREEN SOLUTIONS: Khan Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Muktadir Khan, and Julie Liu on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NALANE GREEN SOLUTIONS NYC LLC d/b/a NALANE GREEN SOLUTIONS, and MATHATA MPELA, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-02459 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law Article 6 ("NYLL"); to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for Plaintiffs. The Defendants failed to: pay Plaintiffs the proper minimum wage rate for all hours worked; pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked; provide accurate wage notice and wage statements; and honor Plaintiffs' terms of employment. The Defendants are liable under the FLSA and NYLL for failing to properly compensate the Plaintiffs and Collective Class/FLSA Plaintiffs, and as such, notice should be sent to the Collective Class. Upon information and belief, there are numerous similarly situated employees of Defendants who have not been properly compensated by Defendants and who would benefit from the issuance of a Court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit, as well as the opportunity to join the present lawsuit. Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants and are readily identifiable through Defendants' records, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Mentor/Supervisors under Defendant NALANE's Green Apprentice Program. NALANE is an eco-focused company that "drives innovation in sustainability with solutions that blend renewable energy, smart agriculture, and clean transportation."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. Elisabeth A. Schiffbauer, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Phone: 516-280-3008 Email: CG@belllg.com eschiffbauer@belllg.com NAVIENT CORP: Ballard Seeks Leave to Submit Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to submit their reply in support of their motion for class certification under seal. The Plaintiffs will also file a public version of the Reply with redactions of any material designated as "confidential" by the Defendants or the Department of Education ("ED"). Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BRiWFq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Fiorentino, Esq. FIORENTINO LAW FIRM 6119 North Kenmore Ave., Ste. 410 Chicago, IL 60660 Telephone: (312) 305-2850 E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com - and - Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 Telephone: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com NET POWER: Glancy Prongay Named Lead Counsel in "Luciani" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ted Luciani, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Net Power Inc., Daniel J. Rice IV, Akash Patel, and Brian Allen, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-296 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Lindsey A. Freeman of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted Walter Schroeder's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and appointed Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP as lead counsel in this putative securities class action. The court denied the competing motion filed by David A. Wenn and Ted Luciani. Background Net Power is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange that focuses on clean energy technology. Through its Net Power Cycle technology, Net Power uses natural gas to generate electricity while capturing nearly all atmospheric emissions. Net Power is developing the first utility-scale plant using Net Power Cycle technology in the Permian Basin of West Texas, referred to as Project Permian. In 2023, defendants initially represented that Project Permian would be operational in 2026 and cost $950 million. Net Power later announced that it was unlikely to complete Project Permian on schedule, with supply chain issues pushing project costs higher. On November 14, 2023, Net Power's stock fell 18.54% after it filed a 10-Q stating that Project Permian would now be operational between the second half of 2027 and the first half of 2028. In 2024, Net Power revised Project Permian's cost estimate to $1.1 billion. On March 10, 2025, Net Power issued another press release stating Project Permian would be completed no earlier than 2029 and would cost between $1.7 billion and $2 billion. In response, its stock price dropped 31.46%. Plaintiff filed a putative class complaint on April 18, 2025, alleging defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements. The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Net Power securities between June 9, 2023, and March 7, 2025. The PSLRA creates a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the movant who has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that Schroeder had the largest financial interest, claiming a loss of $279,357, compared to Wenn and Luciani's claimed loss of $64,581. Schroeder's claims were found to be typical of the putative class, arising from the same course of events. The court noted that his options-related losses represented approximately 17% of his total losses, and that the putative class was defined as those who traded in securities, including options and other derivatives. Schroeder also demonstrated adequacy: he attended MIT Sloan School of Management, spent more than 30 years investing, and retired from a career in energy and finance. The court rejected Wenn and Luciani's argument that Schroeder's high trading frequency rendered him a day trader subject to unique defenses. The court found that his options trades were part of a larger risk-mitigation strategy and that the sheer volume of trades was insufficient to rebut presumptive lead plaintiff status. The court also found that Schroeder's earlier inclusion of a trust account without moving in his trustee capacity did not demonstrate bad faith, particularly since his losses excluding the trust still exceeded those of Wenn and Luciani by roughly four times. Regarding Schroeder's prior involvement as a defendant in a settled securities case approximately 20 years ago, the court held that disqualifying movants because they previously settled a dispute would be inappropriate, as Schroeder was neither found guilty of any bad act nor publicly sanctioned. Lead Counsel The court approved Schroeder's selection of Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP as lead counsel, noting that the firm has decades of experience prosecuting securities class action cases in both federal and state courts. Accordingly, the court granted Schroeder's motion and denied the motion of Wenn and Luciani. A copy of the Court's decision dated 23rd of April, 2016 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HHIqsj from PacerMonitor.com NEW YORK, NY: Delarosa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Delarosa, Christopher Espinal, Shamir Abreu, Anthony Acanfora, Norberto Acosta, Philip Acosta, Craig Actie, Jeffers Adams, Lahissi Adetayo, Jonathan Adorno, Gaetano Agostino, Kevin Agudelo, Nasar Ahmed, Giuseppe Alaimo, Peter Alaimo, Salvatore Alaimo, Peter Alcide, Isaac Alers, Brandon Alexis, Phillip Alexis, Joseph Alfano, Omar Ali, Latoya Alleyne, Sidney Almeida, Luz Almonte, Ramona Butler, and others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:26-cv-03463 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026), for a declaratory judgment, back pay and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to remedy the Defendant's willful and unlawful violations of federal law, and against Defendant's unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs' right to overtime compensation under the FLSA. While working as ACHRs and HRs, the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated routinely work over 40 hours a week. However, the City fails to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Specifically, the City fails to compensate Plaintiffs for hours worked outside of and in addition to their scheduled shifts and during their 30-minute unpaid meal periods. While working as ACHRs and HRs, Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are occasionally compensated for hours worked over 40 in a workweek if the overtime hours were pre-approved. However, when the City compensates Plaintiffs for overtime hours which were pre approved, the City systemically fails to pay Plaintiffs for this overtime work at the correct regular rate of pay because Defendant fails to include night shift differentials and vehicle differentials in the rate at which overtime is paid or pays Plaintiffs for overtime work at the straight time rate rather than at the rate of time and one-half, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant, City of New York. The City of New York has a principal office and place of business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah M. Block, Esq. Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Diana J. Nobile, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Email: gkm@mselaborlaw.com djn@mselaborlaw.com - and - Hope Pordy, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 765-2100 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com NEW YORK, NY: Jackson Seeks Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Jackson v. City of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-02320-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order that the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification of a collective action be denied without prejudice or in the alternative, grants the Defendant 75 days to respond. The Defendant request that the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action be denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Your Honor's Part Rule III.A.i. In the alternative, the Defendant seeks 75 days to respond to the motion since defense counsel is departing the Law Department on May 8th and the matter will have to be reassigned to a new attorney. The time will be necessary for the newly assigned attorney to respond to the motion and the complaint by June 12, 2026. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OWb9BY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. Shawn R. Clark, Esq. Kathryn A. Hettler, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com sclark@faruqilaw.com khettler@faruqilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandon Weisman, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2286 E-mail: bweisman@law.nyc.gov NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (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=mgmdBF at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN NORTH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Wilson" TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01042 (M.D. Tenn.), Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations in a Memorandum and Order dated April 21, 2026. Plaintiff Chet Michael Wilson brings claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, against Nissan North America, Inc. on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. After registering his cell phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry, Plaintiff received multiple prerecorded calls from Autoweb, Inc. on behalf of Nissan. Plaintiff alleged that the calls were intended for some other person, that he had no interest in Nissan's vehicles, and that he did not provide his phone number to or consent to receive prerecorded calls from Nissan or Autoweb. He claimed the calls invaded his privacy, intruded upon his life, and were a private nuisance. Nissan moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds that Plaintiff lacked both constitutional and prudential standing and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Nissan also moved to strike the class allegations on grounds that they failed to satisfy the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On Article III standing, Nissan argued that Plaintiff had not suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest because he allegedly wanted to receive calls that could serve as a basis for TCPA lawsuits and had intentionally put himself in a position to receive such calls. Nissan pointed to Plaintiff's approximately 73 other TCPA cases, his atypical phone number (541-999-9999), and social media posts discussing his claims. The Court declined to consider the social media posts, finding they were not integral to Plaintiff's claims and did not qualify as public records for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The three cases Defendant cited in support were all decided at the summary judgment stage and were factually distinguishable. Plaintiff alleged he did not obtain the number for purposes of litigation, has used it primarily to communicate with friends, schedule appointments, and for other household purposes for at least seven years, and registered it on the Do Not Call Registry. The Court found the allegations in the Amended Complaint sufficient to establish Article III standing at the pleading stage, noting that if facts developed during discovery suggest otherwise, Defendant can raise standing at summary judgment. The Court also denied Nissan's zone-of-interests argument, finding that at this stage, Plaintiff had plausibly alleged his claims fall within the zone of interests protected by the TCPA. On the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, the Court agreed that the allegations did not support direct liability of Nissan, as Plaintiff pleaded that Autoweb made the calls pursuant to a contract with Nissan. However, Plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts from which to infer that Autoweb had actual or apparent authority to make the calls on Nissan's behalf, rendering it Nissan's agent. On treble damages under Section 227(b)(3), the Court held it could not find at the pleading stage that Plaintiff was not entitled to such damages should liability be established, while noting that any award remains discretionary. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied. On the motion to strike, Nissan argued that Plaintiff could not satisfy the typicality or predominance requirements under Rule 23 and that the proposed class constituted an impermissible fail-safe class. The Court found Plaintiff had adequately pleaded facts supporting both typicality and predominance at the pleadings stage. While the Court acknowledged serious questions about the viability of the proposed class definition — noting it skirted close to the line of a fail-safe class — it held that modification of the class definition, which can be done at any stage of the proceeding, is more appropriate than wholesale striking of class allegations at this early stage. The motion to strike was therefore denied. A copy of the Court's decision dated April 23, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hSL5tZ Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is represented by: Brigid M. Carpenter, Esq. Robert F. Tom, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Email: bcarpenter@bakerdonelson.com / rtom@bakerdonelson.com Plaintiff Chet Michael Wilson is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com Susan S. Lafferty, Esq. LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. Email: ssl@laffertylawtn.com NO SCRUBS INC: Biscaha Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against No Scrubs, Inc. The case is styled as Joe Biscaha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. No Scrubs, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00977 (W.D. Tex., April 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NoScrubs -- https://noscrubs.com/ -- offers affordable lightning fast 4-hour wash and fold laundry delivery services with free pickup & delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Tam Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jacky Tam, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTH EAST MEDICAL SERVICES, Case No. 26-CIV-01663 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03264. On March 5, 2026, the Plaintiff by filing a Class Action Complaint ("CAC"). Indeed, the Plaintiff seeks to hold NEMS liable for failure to maintain the Plaintiff's PII and PHI in a manner compliant with the safeguards mandated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Plaintiff's CAC seeks damages, injunctive relief and equitable relief for Negligence; Negligence per se; Breach of Implied Contract; and Unjust Enrichment.[BN] 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 Phone: 310.861.7797 Email: 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 Phone: (610) 567-0700 Email: jfertel@c-wlaw.com rslaven@c-wlaw.com sadams@c-wlaw.com NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Sues Over NPK Fertilizers Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CARROLL, individually and on behalf of 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-04070 (N.D. Ill., April 13, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium fertilizers ("NPK Fertilizers") in the United States. The Defendants implemented and executed their conspiracy by increasing the price of NPK Fertilizers by over 65 percent, leveraging a temporary spike in input costs to justify permanent industry-wide price increases, and utilizing other available means to exploit their collective market power and artificially increase prices of NPK Fertilizers, says the suit. Nutrien US LLC retails agricultural products. The Company provides integrated services of mining raw materials, producing fertilizer, and marketing crop nutrients of nitrogen, phosphate, potash, and sulfate-based fertilizers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 243-6335 Email: kjustice@jjlmlaw.com - and - Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. Samantha M. Gupta, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Email: rwozniak@jjlmlaw.com sgupta@jjlmlaw.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Email: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com - and - H. Samuel Prim, III, Esq. PRIM & MENDHEIM, LLC P.O. Box 2147 (36302) 103 Jamestown Boulevard Dothan, AL 36301 Telephone: (334) 671-9555 Email: samuelprim@gmail.com OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Class Cert Bid in Brasile Due August 21 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joan Brasile and Charlotte German, v. County of Oakland, Case No. 5:23-cv-11690-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Levy entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Initial Disclosures exchanged by: May 22, 2026 Discovery completed by: July 22, 2026 Motion for Class Certification filed by: August 21, 2026 Motions in Limine filed by: To be determined Joint Final Pretrial Order submitted by: TBD Final Pretrial Conference: TBD Oakland is a principal county of the Detroit metropolitan area, containing the bulk of Detroit's northern suburbs. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H6j1w2 at no extra charge.[CC] ONE LIFESTYLE: Everett Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ HANNAH EVERETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE LIFESTYLE, LTD. d/b/a THE GOAT RESTAURANT AND BAR a/k/a THE GOAT, BILLY GOAT TAVERN, LTD., BILLY GOAT TAVERN NC, LLC, BILLY GOAT TAVERN SC, LLC, BILLY GOAT TAVERN TX, LLC, LIFESTYLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LTD., and LIFESTYLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00499-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 23, 2026) is a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio common law for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and unlawfully retained tips owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers employed by the Defendants, as well as liquidated and other non-wage damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and those she seeks to represent a tipped hourly wage less than the statutory hourly minimum wage and less than the statutory hourly minimum overtime wage for hours worked over 40 in a workweek under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and Ohio Wage Laws, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Everett worked for the Defendants as a bartender and server at Defendants' The Goat River south location in Columbus, Ohio from approximately May 10, 2025 to approximately March 26, 2026. The Defendants are all part of the Lifestyle Communities company. Lifestyle Communities is a real estate developer that provides, for example, apartments and townhouses, along with service-oriented amenity offerings, which include, but are not limited to, The Goat Restaurant and Bar a/k/a The Goat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Derose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Marcelino Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- JULES MARCELINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04371 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2026) is an action to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On April 24, 2025, the Plaintiff began receiving text messages from PRA alleging that he owed a debt. The Plaintiff also began receiving phone calls from PRA almost daily, if not daily. However, each time the Plaintiff answered the phone, the line was silent, and no one announced themselves as calling on behalf of PRA. Throughout this entire time, the Plaintiff did not owe any debt to PRA. Other than text messages or phone calls, PRA did not send any other communications to Plaintiff, says the suit. The Plaintiff suffered harm related directly to PRA's conduct in that it caused Plaintiff to experience confusion, anxiety, worry, and emotional distress, causing Plaintiff to spend time to retain counsel, causing him loss of time. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Virginia. PRA is one the largest debt collectors in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff 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 PUTNAM COUNTY, FL: Suit Balks at Provisions of Code of Ordinances ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE TRANSITIONS, INC., and DALTON JUDD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00991 (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2026) arises under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of Section 28-3 of the Code of Ordinances of Putnam County, Florida. According to the complaint, the Ordinance restricts the locations where individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses may reside in unincorporated Putnam County. The Plaintiffs contend that the challenged provisions of the Ordinance violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In particular, the Plaintiffs challenge the following provisions of the Ordinance: (1) Section 28-3(e)(3): This provision prohibits more than two "sexual offenders" or "predators," as defined by the Ordinance, from residing at the same address unless related by blood, marriage, or adoption; (2) Section 28-3(e)(4): This provision prohibits any "sexual offender" or "predator," as defined by the Ordinance, from residing within 500 feet of another "sexual offender" or "predator," unless related by blood, marriage, or adoption; (3) Section 28-3(e)(5): This provision restricts "sexual offenders" or "predators" from occupying a maximum of 10 percent of the dwelling units within any multi-family dwelling, manufactured/mobile home park, or condominium; (4) Section 23-3(e)(1): This provision prohibits "sexual offenders" or "predators" from establishing a residence within 2,500 feet of any school, childcare facility, school bus stop, park, or playground; and (5) Section 23-3(l): This provision prohibits any Property Owner or Lessor from knowingly renting any property "within 2,500 feet of a prohibited location" to a "sexual offender or predator for use as a residence." The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief on the grounds that these sections are, in combination and individually, unconstitutional on their face and as applied. The Plaintiffs also seek nominal and compensatory damages for the injuries associated with the deprivation of their constitutional rights. Plaintiff Justice Transitions is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that owns or operates residential properties in Florida (including in Putnam County) and provides housing to individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses. Putnam County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and it has the capacity to sue and be sued.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ron M. Kleiner, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RON M. KLEINER Courthouse Center, Penthouse One 40 N.W. 3rd Street Miami, FL 33128 Telephone: (844) 766-9467 E-mail: kleinerlawoffice@gmail.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net - and - Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com RECTOR AND VISITORS: Bid to Certify Classes Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE PHILLIPS et al., v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00075-RSB-JCH (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Ballou entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes and appoint class counsel as follows: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Disfavored Religions Class is certified. The certified class (the "Class") is defined as follows: "UVA Health employees who (1) requested a religious accommodation from COVID vaccination, (2) were not members of UVA's 'established religions,' and (3) suffered adverse employment action from UVA as a result of being unvaccinated." The Class excludes job applicants and new hires who did not become UVA Health employees, as well as employees of UVA Imaging. 2. Mark Ehrlich, Ryan Meszaros, Rebecca Tyson, Rebecca Loflin, Janet Ripley, and Joshua Seiler are appointed as Class representatives. 3. The Plaintiffs' counsel of record are appointed jointly as Class counsel. 4. The Plaintiffs' requests to certify the Abortion Objectors Class and the Failure-to Accommodate Class are denied. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OhYR0N at no extra charge.[CC] REDLINE CAPITAL: Bid to Extend Deadline to File Class Cert. OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN BENTLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. REDLINE CAPITAL INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00319-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Baker entered an order granting Bentley's motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification. The Court extends the deadline by which Bentley may file his motion for class certification to, and including, May 27, 2026. Bentley represents that, despite his diligence in preparing for this action, additional time is necessary to complete critical discovery and finalize expert analysis essential to the motion. Bentley also represents that he has made multiple attempts to meet and confer with Redline regarding discovery issues and scheduling over the course of several weeks, but Bentley states that he has not received meaningful responses. Bentley does not seek an extension of any other deadlines. Redline provides alternative lending solutions for business owners. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6yodcV at no extra charge.[CC] SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Buezo PAGA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Buezo PAGA class suit in the Orange County Superior Court. On February 17, 2026, former employee Jose Buezo filed a PAGA action in the Orange County Superior Court (the Buezo Case) alleging violations substantially similar to the Ramirez PAGA action, and additional claims relating to allegedly unpaid vacation and sick pay. The Buezo Case seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved non-exempt employees, along with attorneys fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, the Guerrero Cases and the Buezo Case to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corp. is a global integrated manufacturing solutions company that provides design, engineering, and logistics services to original equipment manufacturers in the communications, industrial, medical, defense, aerospace, automotive, and other sectors. The company is headquartered in San Jose, California. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Gomez Labor and PAGA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gomez labor and PAGA class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On August 12, 2024, former employee Mando Gomez filed a class and PAGA action in the Alameda County Superior Court (the Gomez Case) alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Gomez Case seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between August 12, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, the Guerrero Cases and the Buezo Case to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corp. is a global integrated manufacturing solutions company that provides design, engineering, and logistics services to original equipment manufacturers in the communications, industrial, medical, defense, aerospace, automotive, and other sectors. The company is headquartered in San Jose, California. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Guerrero PAGA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Guerrero PAGA class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On September 20, 2024 and November 26, 2024, former employee Frank J. Leon Guerrero filed class and PAGA actions in the Alameda County Superior Court (the "Guerrero Cases") alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Guerrero class action seeks certification of several classes comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between September 20, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, the Guerrero Cases and the Buezo Case to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corp. is a global integrated manufacturing solutions company that provides design, engineering, and logistics services to original equipment manufacturers in the communications, industrial, medical, defense, aerospace, automotive, and other sectors. The company is headquartered in San Jose, California. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Lobatos PAGA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lobatos PAGA class suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court. On June 14, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos filed PAGA class action in the Santa Clara County Superior alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases, and, in the case of the Lobatos PAGA action, additional violations related to sick leave, suitable rest facilities, seating, failure to retain and provide employment and payroll records, reporting time pay, day of rest rules, payroll deductions, paid time off, and various unlawful employment practices. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, the Guerrero Cases and the Buezo Case to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corp. is a global integrated manufacturing solutions company that provides design, engineering, and logistics services to original equipment manufacturers in the communications, industrial, medical, defense, aerospace, automotive, and other sectors. The company is headquartered in San Jose, California. SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez PAGA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ramirez PAGA class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. The a class action was filed by former employee Gerardo Ramirez on November 14, 2025 under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleges substantially similar violations and a violation of the provision governing payment of final wages and seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved employees, along with attorneys fees and costs. Sanmina Corp. is a global integrated manufacturing solutions company that provides design, engineering, and logistics services to original equipment manufacturers in the communications, industrial, medical, defense, aerospace, automotive, and other sectors. The company is headquartered in San Jose, California. SEI INVESTMENTS: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ SEI Investments Co. 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 ERISA class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A class action complaint was filed on December 26, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by David Hall and Jennifer Knapp, individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons and on behalf of the SEI Capital Accumulation Plan, naming the Company and its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as defendants, in an action alleging that defendants breached fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting and monitoring certain of the Plan's investment options, which are affiliated investment products. SEI Investments Co. is a global provider of investment processing, investment management, and investment operations solutions for corporations, financial institutions, financial advisors, and ultra-high-net-worth families. The company offers technology platforms and outsourced services that support wealth management, asset management, and institutional investing activities worldwide. SELECTBLINDS LLC: Removes Baker Suit to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of LINDA BAKER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTBLINDS LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 26-2-08290-1 SEA) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 10, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01233-TL. The case is assigned to Judge Lauren King. SelectBlinds LLC provides building materials. The Company offers wood blinds, shutters, shades, drapery, and other products by television, catalog, and mail-order with free-shipping and warranties. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Austin Rainwater, Esq. Kristin Asai, Esq. Abigail Gore, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 505-4000 Email: Austin.Rainwater@hklaw.com Kristin.Asai@hklaw.com Abigail.Gore@hklaw.com SEPHORA USA INC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrun Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sephora USA, Inc., Does 1 Through 5, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26636094 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Sephora USA, Inc. -- https://www.sephora.com/ -- operates as a cosmetics and beauty stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly J. Savage, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP One Market Plaza Steuart Tower, 8th Fl San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-781-7900 SEVEN STARS: Harris Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEVEN STARS FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02707 (E.D. Pa., April 24, 2026) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff contending that Defendant unlawfully failed to pay him and other similarly-situated hourly workers employed in Defendant's milk processing, bottling, and packaging operations overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant who was employed in position of milk processor. The Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs regularly work more than 40 hours per week, but receive only their regular hourly rate (i.e. straight-time compensation) for their overtime hours worked, says the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that he and Class Plaintiffs are owed unpaid overtime compensation which has been denied them as a result of Defendant's unlawful pay practices. Seven Stars Farm, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com SIBER SYSTEMS: Gonzales Fake Pricing Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as GENEVA GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIBER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26STCV08312, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04391 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Defendant advertises fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through its website. 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, says the suit. Siber Systems Inc. is an online retailer that sells products in the U.S. and in California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ira M. Steinberg, Esq. GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3610 Facsimile: (310) 553-0687 SIBYLLINE AMERICAS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Keane Due August 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH KEANE and JACOB GOLLIET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIBYLLINE AMERICAS INC. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00569-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Deadline for joining additional parties: June 5, 2026 Deadline for filing motions relating to Aug. 10, 2026 discovery on class certification: Deadline to complete discovery on class Sept. 9, 2026 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion Oct. 9, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file Nov. 6, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply Nov. 20, 2026 in support of motion for class certification: Sibylline is a consulting firm, specializing in providing strategic intelligence and risk analysis services to clients. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cNRvWJ at no extra charge.[CC] SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Roeun Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cylo Van Roeun, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV175243 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-03270. The complaint purports to state causes of action under the California Labor Code for: failure to pay all wages and minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide compliant meal periods; failure to provide compliant rest periods; failure to pay sick pay; failure to pay all vacation wages purportedly due at the end of employment; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay all wages due during employment; failure to timely pay all wages due at the end of employment; failure to pay reporting time pay; failure to maintain required records, and failure to reimburse for purportedly necessary business expenses. Plaintiff also bring a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on the alleged California Labor Code violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.282.2500 Fax: 310.282.2501 Email: kdsullivan@thompsoncoburn.com SKECHERS USA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Liss Due Feb. 19, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Liss, et al., v. Skechers USA INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05861 (W.D. Wash., Filed Sept. 22, 2025), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered a scheduling conference order: -- Class Certification motion is due by Feb. 19, 2027 -- Opposition due March 22, 2027 -- Reply due March 12, 2027 The Parties are directed to confer and file a proposed arbitration and expert disclosure schedule by March 30, 2026. Court directs the parties to follow the rules as to the number of depositions. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Skechers is an American multinational footwear and apparel company.[CC] SLM CORP: Zappia Files Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corp 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 23, 2026, that a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2025 against SLM Corporation and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned "Zappia v. SLM Corporation, et al." The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities. The complaint contends that certain statements made by the company and certain of its officers were allegedly false or misleading and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. SLM Corp, commonly known as Sallie Mae, is a financial services company specializing in private education loans and related products for students and families in the United States. The company also offers savings, banking and insurance solutions tailored to education financing needs. SOFIDEL AMERICA: Warren Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Warren, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SOFIDEL AMERICA CORP., a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-02771-TJS (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation structure, including, but not limited to, a "production" bonus (collectively "Bonus Pay"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title Production Assistant. The Defendant holds itself out as a "force for good that brings cleaner, healthier and more harmonious living to everyone, everywhere."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM: "Nobel" Class Counsel Gets $3.5M in Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Das Nobel, Eduardo Martinez, Daniel Grande, William Pou, David Ziemek, and Joseph Abadi, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. South Florida Stadium LLC d/b/a Hard Rock Stadium; Confederacion Sudamericana de Futbol d/b/a CONMEBOL; Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football d/b/a CONCACAF; and Best Crowd Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-22751-BLOOM/Elfenbein (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted final approval of a class action settlement arising from the Copa America Final Match at Hard Rock Stadium. This is a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out class action. The Court granted the Named Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval and their application for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative awards. The Court found the Settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable in compliance with all applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the United States Constitution, and all other applicable law. The Court finally certified, for settlement purposes only, two Settlement Classes: (a) the Denied Entry Class, comprising all ticketholders to the Copa America Final Match who were denied entry to Hard Rock Stadium; and (b) the Denied Full Access Class, comprising all ticketholders who were admitted to Hard Rock Stadium but were denied full access to and enjoyment of Hard Rock Stadium facilities or to specific seats purchased. The Settlement Administrator, Angeion Group, provided class notice to approximately 35,921 Settlement Class Members via e-mail and/or U.S. Mail. As of the Opt-Out and Objection Date, it received 27 valid exclusion statements and one timely objection. The Court overruled the objection. The low number of valid exclusion statements indicates that the vast majority of Settlement Class Members view the Settlement relief favorably. In finding the Settlement fair and adequate, the Court considered that: (a) the Class Representatives and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class; (b) the Settlement was negotiated at arm's length among competent, able counsel with the assistance of a qualified mediator; (c) the relief provided through the Settlement is adequate; and (d) the Settlement treats Settlement Class Members equitably relative to each other. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), the Court awarded Class Counsel $3,465,000 in attorneys' fees and $35,000 in litigation costs, totaling $3,500,000, payable from the Settlement Fund. The requested attorneys' fee amounts to approximately 25% of the settlement fund and is within the range of reason. The Court also approved a service award of $5,000 each for the Named Plaintiffs for the time and burden they invested in pursuing the case. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The Named Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members have fully and irrevocably released and forever discharged the Released Persons from all Released Claims. All Settlement Class Members, regardless of whether they submitted an approved claim or received actual notice of the Settlement, are bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the releases therein. The Court retains jurisdiction over implementation of the Settlement Agreement and all distributions to Settlement Class Members. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gvCIli from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Confederacion Sudamericana de Futbol (CONMEBOL) is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com Defendant Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) is represented by: Lawrence Dean Silverman, Esq. Jon Muenz, Esq. Brian Miguel Trujillo, Esq. John J. Kuster, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Email: lawrence.silverman@sidley.com / jmuenz@sidley.com / brian.trujillo@sidley.com / jkuster@sidley.com Defendant Best Crowd Management, Inc. is represented by: Lauren J. Caisman, Esq. Clement Ryan Reetz, Esq. Brian A. Sher, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Email: lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com / ryan.reetz@post.harvard.edu / brian.sher@bclplaw.com Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan M. Sawal, Esq. Eduardo Ayala Maura, Esq. Orestes Daniel Garcia, Esq. Luis F. Quesada Machado, Esq. AYALA LAW P.A. Email: rsawal@ayalalawpa.com eayala@ayalalawpa.com lquesada@ayalalawpa.com STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Doe Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Car Inc. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Car Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2026-0003117 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair Business Practice." Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ -- provides the care needed to improve and maintain heart health, from preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 929-9303 Fax: (760) 929-9260 Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com STONECO LTD: Settlement in Ray Gets Court OK -------------------------------------------- StoneCo Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2026, that on November 19, 2021, Ronald F. Ray filed a putative securities class action against StoneCo Ltd. and its board members Thiago dos Santos Piau, Lia Machado de Matos, Rafael Martins Pereira and Marcelo Baldin. On December 7, 2021, Landon Depue filed a substantially similar complaint against the same parties, and that on January 18, 2022, six potential class members, namely Tulsi Chaulagain, Indiana Public Retirement System, Audrey Holdings Group Limited, Bandana Neupane Poudel, Tan Seh Yii, and Paul Foden, moved for consolidation of both actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2022, the court consolidated the related actions and appointed Indiana Public Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff. As of December 31, 2025, the lead plaintiff agreed to a settlement of R$ 145.3 million. The settlement was approved by the court on February 27, 2026. Additionally, certain investors have filed an opt-out action in the Southern District of New York, and the company has moved to dismiss the opt-out action for, among other reasons, attempting to revive claims that were dismissed in the class action. StoneCo Ltd. is a Brazil-based financial technology company that provides payment processing, digital banking and other financial services primarily to merchants and integrated partners. The company leverages technology to offer solutions for electronic commerce, in-store payments and financial management across its platform. SUNRUN INC: Alarcon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrun Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Alarcon, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrun Inc., Sunrun Installation Services Inc., Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26636050 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Sunrun -- https://www.sunrun.com/ -- is the leading home solar panel and battery storage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: 424-292-2350 SVB FINANCIAL: Buchanan Has Until June 18 to Oppose Bid to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN J. BUCHANAN, v. GREGORY W. BECKER, et al., Case No. 24-cv-02684-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order adopting the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion to amend the operative complaint and KPMG's anticipated motion to dismiss: Event Date The Plaintiffs' filing of motion for leave May 4, 2026 to amend complaint with the proposed amended complaint attached as an exhibit: KPMG's opposition to motion for leave to June 3, 2026 amend Complaint (if any) and motion to dismiss the amended complaint's Section 10(b) claim against KPMG: The Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to June 18, 2026 dismiss and the Plaintiffs' reply (if any) in further support of motion for leave to amend complaint: KPMG's reply in further support of its June 29, 2026 motion to dismiss: -- The Court vacates the CMC set for: May 5, 2026. SVB is a financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1rHbao at no extra charge.[CC] SVB FINANCIAL: TIAA-CREF Has Until June 18 to Oppose Bid to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIAA-CREF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., v. GREGORY W. BECKER, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00478-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order adopting the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion to amend the operative complaint and KPMG's anticipated motion to dismiss: Event Date The Plaintiffs' filing of motion for leave May 4, 2026 to amend complaint with the proposed amended complaint attached as an exhibit: KPMG's opposition to motion for leave to June 3, 2026 amend Complaint (if any) and motion to dismiss the amended complaint's Section 10(b) claim against KPMG: The Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to June 18, 2026 dismiss and the Plaintiffs' reply (if any) in further support of motion for leave to amend complaint: KPMG's reply in further support of its June 29, 2026 motion to dismiss: -- The Court vacates the CMC set for: May 5, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=koYKdL at no extra charge.[CC] SVB FINANCIAL: Vanipenta Has Until June 18 to Oppose Bid to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chandra Vanipenta v. SVB Financial Group et al (RE SVB FINANCIAL GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 23-cv-01097-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order adopting the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion to amend the operative complaint and KPMG's anticipated motion to dismiss: Event Date The Plaintiffs' filing of motion for leave May 4, 2026 to amend complaint with the proposed amended complaint attached as an exhibit: KPMG's opposition to motion for leave to June 3, 2026 amend Complaint (if any) and motion to dismiss the amended complaint's Section 10(b) claim against KPMG: The Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to June 18, 2026 dismiss and the Plaintiffs' reply (if any) in further support of motion for leave to amend complaint: KPMG's reply in further support of its June 29, 2026 motion to dismiss: -- The Court vacates the CMC set for: May 5, 2026. SVB is a financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=brnjPt at no extra charge.[CC] SYNEOS HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Kempen Suit Due Oct. 1 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL FUNDS (KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL FUNDS - MERCLIN GLOBAL EQUITY), KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL FUNDS (KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL FUNDS - MERCLIN PATRIMONIUM), and MERCLIN INSTITUTIONAL FUND (MERCLIN INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY FUND DBI RDT), Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC., ALISTAIR MACDONALD, MICHELLE KEEFE, PAUL COLVIN, and JASON MEGGS, Case No. 1:23-cv-08848-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- The Defendants shall answer the complaint on or before May 12, 2026. -- Joinder of additional parties must be accomplished by Dec. 15, 2026. -- Amended pleadings may be filed without leave of Court until Dec. 8, 2026. -- All discovery is to be completed by July 29, 2027. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 1, 2026. Any opposition(s) to such motion shall be filed by Dec. 20, 2026. Any reply shall be filed by Feb. 16, 2027. Syneos is an American company that provides contract research and commercial services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7l6EFY at no extra charge.[CC] TIM MORAN HYUNDAI: Dominguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Henry Dominguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIM MORAN HYUNDAI HEMET, INC., and DOES 1-100, and EACH OF THEM, Case No. CVRI2601214 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01924. The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated California Penal Code Section 632.7 as to cellular telephone conversations only.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Parme, Esq. Tyler L. Kaminsky, Esq. KAHANA & FELD, LLP 12526 High Bluff Dr., Suite 105 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 397-5550 Email: mparme@kahanafeld.com tkaminsky@kahanafeld.com TIM MORAN HYUNDAI: Hook Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jordan Van Hook, individually and for others similarly situated, the State of California, and Aggrieved Employees v. FRC BALANCE, LLC D/B/A TRUE FOOD KITCHEN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV38545 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04159. On March 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff's FAC asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for: Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked; Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages (Waiting Time Penalties); Recordkeeping Violations; Unfair Business Practices; PAGA Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(a); and PAGA Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tracie Childs, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: tracie.childs@ogletree.com andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com TROPIAN INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tropian Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04318 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://plantatorem.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase indoor and outdoor planters in different styles and sizes, as well as garden sculptures, statues, fountains, and other ornamental pieces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Alshubrumi Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Tungray Technologies Inc disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2026, that on Aug. 7, 2025, Mohammed Alshubrumi, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, brought a putative class action before the New York Supreme Court against the company, its Chairman and CEO, its former Chief Financial Officer, and the representative of the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging that the financial statements disclosed in its registration statement and prospectus relating to the initial public offering were materially false in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. Plaintiff sought statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Securities Act. Tungray Technologies Inc is a technology company that develops and provides advanced electronics and related solutions. The company serves customers in various sectors with a focus on innovation and international growth. UHS OF HARTGROVE: Lawal Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Tolulope Lawal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UHS OF HARTGROVE, INC., d/b/a HARTGROVE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER and UHS OF DELAWARE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04770 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026), is brought challenging certain policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay wages. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek for Defendants. Therefore, as a result of Defendants' rounding practices, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees for all overtime earned, in violation of the FLSA and IMWL. As a result of Defendants' companywide policies and/or practices, Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not compensating the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees for all overtime pay that they actually earned, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as a Registered Nurse ("RN") at Defendants' Hartgrove Hospital facility located in Chicago, Illinois. UHS, Inc. owns, operates, manages, and controls acute care hospitals, behavioral health facilities, freestanding emergency departments and ambulatory centers across the United States, with many of these facilities located in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com UNILEVER UNITED: Hossain Bid to Seal Specific Language Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZEBIN HOSSAIN, v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02833-NCM-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Merkl entered an order granting in part and denying in part motions to seal summary judgment and preclusion motions. To the extent a specific sealing request is denied, the Court finds that the parties have not established either (1) that public filing of information as to which sealing is denied realistically risks disclosure of confidential business information, trade secrets,4 or third partie' private information, or (2) that the proposed redactions regarding Plaintiff's sensitive medical information are narrowly tailored to preserve Plaintiff's privacy interest in that information. Thus, the parties have failed to establish that the risk of disclosure outweighs the presumption of public access, and The Court's conclusions are as follows: (1) Plaintiff's requests to seal specific language (highlighted in green) from the Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Fact are granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Plaintiff may redact the names of any medical condition with which Plaintiff was diagnosed or for which she was tested or sought treatment, the name of any medication or other treatment she was prescribed or which she underwent for such condition, or any precipitating life event identified as a possible alternative cause of hair loss. Plaintiff may not redact the remainder of any sentence in which any such reference appears or the surrounding context. The parties' requests to seal specific language from Plaintiff's Statement in Response are correspondingly granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's requests to seal specific language are granted in part and denied in part. The Defendant manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q9VgUC at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED HEALTH: Big Island Suit Removed to D. Hawaii --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Big Island Health Clinic, Inc., 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., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on April 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00211-LEK-RT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. 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: Fred I. Waki, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRED I. WAKI Executive Centre 1088 Bishop St. Suite 910 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 779-9409 Email: fwaki@hotmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Lisa Katherine Swartzfager, Esq. CASE SCHUTTE LLP 1000 Bishop Street, Ste. 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 521-9205 Email: lswartzfager@cades.com UNITED STATES: Gontarz Balks at DOD's Contingency-Coding Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY M. GONTARZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Defense; HUNG CAO, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Navy; DANIEL DRISCOLL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Army; TROY E. MEINK, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Air Force; and MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01396 (D.D.C., April 24, 2026) arises because the Department of Defense has implemented and enforced a contrary, extra-statutory policy that denies Transitional Assistance Management Program to otherwise eligible servicemembers based on an internal administrative coding requirement. When a Reserve Component servicemember returns from active duty, the abrupt transition back to civilian life frequently brings significant uncertainty, including whether civilian employment will resume promptly or at all, whether income will stabilize, and whether the servicemember and their family will have continued access to healthcare. The U.S. Congress addressed that risk directly by creating the Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP), codified in 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1145. That law guarantees Reserve Component servicemembers eligibility for 180 days of premium-free medical and dental coverage following the end of a qualifying period of active duty. According to the complaint, DoD conditions eligibility for TAMP for those Reserve Component servicemembers who serve more than 30 consecutive days of active duty on whether a servicemember's orders are coded as "in support of a contingency operation" in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), the DoD's internal system for tracking personnel status and benefits eligibility. That requirement does not appear in the statute. Instead, it is imposed through DoD's implementing regulation and reinforced through DoD policy and guidance, including the TRICARE Policy which makes DEERS coding dispositive of eligibility determinations. The military departments and Coast Guard are bound to apply this uniform, centrally administered framework and lack discretion to depart from it. As a result, Reserve Component servicemembers who serve more than 30 consecutive days during a declared national emergency are categorically denied TAMP unless their orders contain the required contingency-operation coding. Accordingly, Plaintiff Gontarz, a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Reserve, brings this action, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated members of a Reserve Component pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because Defendants' uniform policy and practice unlawfully deprives Reserve Component servicemembers of eligibility determinations consistent with 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1145(a)(2)(B) and denies transitional healthcare coverage based on criteria not authorized by statute. United States Department of Defense is an executive department of the United States federal government charged with coordinating and supervising the United States Armed Forces -- the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force, and, for some purposes, the Coast Guard—and related functions and agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John ("Jay") Jurata, Jr., Esq. Brian Hanna, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-3440 E-mail: jay.jurata@dechert.com brian.hanna@dechert.com - and - Rochelle Bobroff, Esq. Esther Leibfarth, Esq. Matthew Handley, Esq. NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (202) 621-5677 Facsimile: (202) 223-9199 E-mail: rochelle@nvlsp.org esther@nvlsp.org matthew.handley@nvlsp.org UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Removes Therapy Suit to D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of BELLO THERAPY; MELISSA MOREHOUSE LICSW LLC; THROUGH THE FOREST COUNSELING INC.; and TRANSFORMATIVE INTIMACY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES INC.; OPTUM INSIGHT, INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS LLC; CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC.; and OPTUM BANK, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk (Case No. 2684CV00559-BLS2) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 13, 2026. The clerk of court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-11706. The case is assigned to Dulce J. Foster and referred to Magistrate Donovan W. Frank. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is an American multinational for-profit company based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, specializing in health insurance and health care services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexandra Watson Bailey, Esq. Hogan Lovells US LLP 125 High Street, Suite 2010 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 371-1000 Email: alexandra.bailey@hoganlovells.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Therapy My Way Suit Removed to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Therapy My Way Psychology P.C. and Aurora Counseling Services LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC., OPTUM, INC., OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC., and OPTUM BANK, Case No. 6033362/2026 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02305. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were unable to submit claims, receive ERAs, and receive payment for its medical care to patients. The Plaintiffs further alleges it did not receive the services it paid for from Defendant Change and suffered monetary losses via rejected and/or delayed payments and spending inordinate resources and time investigating the network outage and alternative methods to receive payment for medical care.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phoebe A. Wilkinson, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 918-3010 Fax: (212) 918-3100 Email: phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com URBAN OUTFITTERS: Vanwormer Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lauren Vanwormer and Mallory Santic, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02386 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02757-KSM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Urban Outfitters US -- https://www.urbanoutfitters.com/ -- is a lifestyle retailer dedicated to inspiring customers through a unique combination of product, creativity and cultural understanding.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. David M. Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, Suite B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: (443) 213-1977 Email: clz@zlawmaryland.com dmt@zlawmaryland.com The Defendants are represented by: Blake Marks-Dias, Esq. Colin M. George, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 625-8600 Fax: (206) 625-0900 Email: bmarksdias@corrcronin.com cgeorge@corrcronin.com - and - Hillary A. Hamilton, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 687-5000 Fax: (213) 687-5600 Email: hillary.hamilton@skadden.com - and - Michael W. McTigue, Jr., Esq. Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001-8602 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Fax: (212) 735-2000 Email: michael.mctigue@skadden.com meredith.slawe@skadden.com URBAN OUTFITTERS: Verduzco Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urban Outfitters (Delaware), Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Verduzco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Urban Outfitters (Delaware), Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02654-JO-SBC (S.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. Urban Outfitters (Delaware), Inc. -- https://www.urbanoutfitters.com/ -- offers men's and women's apparel, streetwear clothing, and stylish apartment decor and furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (305) 506-4746 Email: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Gonsales Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ramon Gonsales, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU003289C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02688-W-DDL. The Plaintiff's claims substantially depend upon the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") and are therefore preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. Grace L. Waddell, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com gwaddell@littler.com VAN LAURENCE BARKER: Cervantez-Tkac Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Laurence Barker, et al. The case is styled as Crystal Cervantez-Tkac, individually and as sole member of Simaya Innovations LLC, Simaya Innovations LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Van Laurence Barker, Joshua James Kennedy, Siyuan Zheng, Lighthouse Estates LLC, Starpoint Holdings LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00280-CHB (W.D. Ky., April 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Loftus, Esq. LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD. 181 W Madison, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 899-6625 Email: alex@loftusandeisenberg.com - and - Michele Henry, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELE HENRY PLC 517 West Ormsby Avenue Louisville, KY 40203 Phone: (502) 536-0085 Email: mhenry@michelehenrylaw.com VAYAN GROUP: Montgomery Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marenya Montgomery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VAYAN GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2026LA000029 was removed from the Circuit Court of McLean County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Central District of Illinois on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01154-MMM-RLH. According to allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the putative class she purports to represent allege Vayan collected and disseminated their biometric information and biometric identifiers in violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Catherine A. Miller, Esq. Jeffrey J. Mayer, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 360-5700 Email: catherine.miller@akerman.com jeffrey.mayer@akerman.com VERTIV HOLDINGS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Vertiv Holdings Co. 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 the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the consolidated Sullivan derivative suit. On June 9, 2023, two Vertiv shareholders, Matthew Sullivan and Jose Karlo Ocampo Avenido, brought a derivative lawsuit, Sullivan v. Johnson, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0608 (the "Sullivan Action"), against Vertiv (as nominal defendant only) and certain of the Company's directors and officers in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of fiduciary duty, and on November 19, 2024, another Vertiv shareholder, Laura Hanna, brought a derivative lawsuit, Hanna v. Johnson, et al., against Vertiv (as nominal defendant only) and certain of the Company's directors and officers in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints allege that the named directors and officers caused the Company to issue materially false and/or misleading public statements with respect to inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and that the Company suffered damages as a result. The Sullivan Action has been stayed since August 10, 2023 pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On February 13, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order that (i) consolidated the Sullivan Action and the Hanna Action into a single consolidated derivative lawsuit, In re Vertiv Holdings Co Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2023-0608-NAC (the "Consolidated Derivative Action"), (ii) designated the complaint in the Hanna Action as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Derivative Action, and (iii) stayed the Consolidated Derivative Action on terms identical to those of the existing stay of the Sullivan Action. Vertiv Holdings Co is a global provider of critical digital infrastructure and continuity solutions, serving data centers, communication networks, and commercial and industrial facilities worldwide. The company offers power, thermal, and IT management products and services designed to ensure reliable and efficient operation of mission-critical applications. VERTIV HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vertiv Holdings Co 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 the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Vertiv is a defendant in a putative securities class action, In re Vertiv Holdings Co Securities Litigation, 22-cv-3572, filed on May 3, 2022 in the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and directors, and other defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2022. The amended complaint alleges that certain of the Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading with respect to inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities that (i) purchased Vertiv securities between February 24, 2021 and February 22, 2022 and/or (ii) purchased Vertiv securities in or traceable to the November 4, 2021 secondary public offering by a selling stockholder pursuant to a resale registration statement. On January 31, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing the claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act remains pending. Vertiv Holdings Co is a global provider of critical digital infrastructure and continuity solutions, serving data centers, communication networks, and commercial and industrial facilities worldwide. The company offers power, thermal, and IT management products and services designed to ensure reliable and efficient operation of mission-critical applications. VIRGINIA: Disfavored Religions Class Certified in Phillips Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE PHILLIPS et al., v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00075-RSB-JCH (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Ballou entered a judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the Disfavored Religions Class, and denying as to the Abortion Objectors Class and the Failure to-Accommodate Class. The Disfavored Religions Class is certified and defined as: "UVA Health employees who (1) requested a religious accommodation from COVID vaccination, (2) were not members of UVA's 'established religions,' and (3) suffered adverse employment action from UVA as a result of being unvaccinated." Relief granted through class certification shall apply only to Defendant UVA Health and not to Defendant UVA Imaging. After considering the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), I find that the Plaintiffs' counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Accordingly, I appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel for the certified Disfavored Religions Class. Because the Plaintiffs have not presented meaningful evidence of a uniform policy or practice governing UVA Health's treatment of abortion-based objections, and because adjudicating these claims would require individualized inquiries into each employee’s beliefs and the reasons for denial, I find class-wide resolution to be unworkable. The Plaintiffs seek to certify three classes challenging the procedures UVA Health used to evaluate religious exemption requests: (1) the "Disfavored Religions Class," (2) the "Abortion Objectors Class," and (3) the "Failure-to-Accommodate Class." The "Abortion Objectors Class" consists of approximately 120 members and is defined as: "UVA Health employees or job applicants who: (1) submitted requests for accommodations from COVID vaccination based on the vaccines' association with abortion or fetal cell lines, and (2) suffered adverse employment action as a result of being unvaccinated." The "Failure-to-Accommodate Class" consists of approximately 210 members and is defined as: "UVA Health employees or job applicants who (1) requested accommodations from COVID vaccination on religious grounds and (2) suffered adverse employment action as a result of being unvaccinated." A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CtZ1RQ at no extra charge.[CC] WATERWAYS PLAZA LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. WATERWAYS PLAZA, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-22943-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 27, 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 Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has 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, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property, cafeteria and restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial grocery store has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and supermarket and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WATERWAYS PLAZA, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot/parking spots specific to the businesses therein, paths of travel and general common areas, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@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 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in Harris Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE HARRIS et al., v. COUNTY OF WAYNE and TERRI GRAHAM, Case No. 2:23-cv-10986-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Michelson entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). The Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the Plaintiffs on both Monell claims: a custom or policy of acquiescence to constitutional violations and failure to train. The Defendants say that, since they seek bifurcated trials (one for claims against Graham and another for claims against the County), reversal on the Monell claims would eliminate the need for one trial entirely. But the request for bifurcated trials has not been formally made to this Court. Nor has that request been granted. The Plaintiffs—95 women who were formerly incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail—allege that they were subjected to unconstitutional strip searches by officer Terri Graham between 2016 and 2022. In their amended complaint, they claim that Graham violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and that the County is also liable for these violations under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Wayne County is located in southeastern Michigan, encompassing approximately 623 square miles. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OgyMTC at no extra charge.[CC] WESTROCK SERVICES: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Juan Ochoa Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C25-03165 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on April 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03290. The Complaint asserted claims for alleged failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; waiting time penalties; failure to provide accurate wage statements; violation of unfair competition law; and civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394.9401 Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com - and - Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com WREN U.S. HOLDINGS: Hughes Balks at Mass Layoff Without Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WREN U.S. HOLDINGS, INC.; WREN MANUFACTURING, INC.; WREN PENNSYLVANIA, INC.; WREN LOGISTICS, INC.; WREN RETAIL, INC.; and WREN KITCHEN STUDIOS, INC. Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01081-RDM (M.D. Pa., April 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. On April 23, 2026, the Defendants abruptly terminated every employee at all their facilities, effective immediately, without providing any advance written notice. The Defendants informed the affected employees that Wren was immediately ceasing operations in the United States. No employee received advance notice of their termination, much less the 60 days' advance written notice required under the WARN Act. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide the notice required by the WARN Act, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are entitled to recover back pay, benefits, and other relief, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed full time by Defendants at Wren's warehouse and administrative facility located in Sugar Notch, Pennsylvania in the position of Quartz Compliance Officer. The Defendants are affiliated corporate entities that operated a kitchen design, manufacturing, and distribution business out of three warehouse, production, and administrative facilities located along the same street in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. POND LEHOCKY GIORDANO, INC. 2005 Market Street, 18th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (856) 528-8115 E-mail: jabay@pondlehocky.com ZSPACE INC: Kovaleski Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW KOVALESKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZSPACE, INC., PAUL KELLENBERGER, ERICK DEOLIVEIRA, PANKAJ GUPTA, AMIT JAIN, ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC., and BARRINGTON RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02432 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired zSpace securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with zSpace's December 2024 initial public offering and suffered compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, the Defendants' statements were materially false and/or misleading because it misrepresented and/or failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results. Specifically, the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) before zSpace even filed its form S-1, a certain purchaser of Series E and Series F preferred stock emailed, inter alia, Defendant DeOliveira concerning financial statements that Defendants owed to the shareholder pursuant to the preferred stock purchase agreement; (2) there was a purchaser of zSpace's preferred shares who was not named in the Registration Statement; (3) Defendants' failure to fulfill their obligations to their preferred shareholder would result in litigation; and (4) as a result, Defendants' risk disclosures were materially false and misleading at all relevant times by downplaying the risk of litigation as a hypothetical at the time of the IPO. In December 2024, the Defendants held the IPO, offering approximately 1,875,000 shares of common stock to the investing public at $5 per share. zSpace raised $9,375,000 in the IPO, excluding underwriting discounts and commissions and expenses. By the commencement of this action, zSpace's shares traded below its IPO price. As a result, investors were damaged, says the suit. zSpace, Inc. provides augmented reality and virtual reality educational technology solutions. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and its head office is located in San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.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 ***