260506.mbx

260506.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 6, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 90 Headlines AAA NORTHEAST: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hellested Alleges AGS PROTECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Sued Over Deceptive "Buy One Get One" Deals ALERT 360: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Johnson Alleges AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Klutts Says AUTOVIN INC: Faces Bobicchio Suit in Cal. Sup., Ventura Cty. BABO BOTANICALS: Greenbach Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products BANK OF AMERICA: Summary Judgment in "Nia" Class Suit Affirmed BMO BANK: Faces Chavez Suit in Cal. Sup., Kern County BON CHARGE: Court Narrows "King" TCPA Suit BRIDGE IT: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Feeman Suit to 2nd Cir. BRITA PRODUCTS: Dismissal of Brown Without Leave to Amend Affirmed CAPITAL ONE: Wrongfully Closes Credit Card Accounts, Suit Claims CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Hayes Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. COLLECTION BUREAU: Clark Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Appeals Class Cert. Order to 6th Circuit D.R. HORTON: Summary Judgment in Zitek Class Suit Affirmed DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Private Info, Rodriguez Says DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Serrato Files Suit Over Data Breach DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims E-BENEFIT SOLUTION: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ESTEE LAUDER: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for CAD$1.515-Mil. EXXON MOBIL: Dismissal of Tucker Claims with Prejudice Affirmed FINANCIAL CREDIT: Clark Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections FLORIDA PHYSICIAN: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FUNKO LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Juarez Suit Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Cochran Sues Over Defective Cadillac Vehicles GIVEBUTTER INC: McClintock Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. HOME DEPOT: Schmierer Sues Over Data Privacy Violations IXL LEARNING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Shanahan Upheld in Part KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mailhoit Alleges KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Frank Appeals Approved Settlement to 2nd Cir. KLOECKNER METALS: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Bailey Says LAW SCHOOL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims in "Risner" LIFE CARE: Superior Court's Dismissal of Corbin Class Suit Reversed LIFE INSURANCE: Caton Sues Over Unlawful Life Insurance Scheme MAKE IT RIGHT: Partial Summary Judgment in Francis Suit Vacated MARYLAND: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Palmer Suit to 4th Circuit MARYLAND: Court Revises Briefing Sched for Class Certification MERRILL LYNCH: Summary Judgment in Milligan Class Suit Affirmed MN BEST BUY: Reference Prices "Misleading," Class Suit Says MONKEY TAPS: Decker Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy MRO CORP: Faces Lamb Class Action Suit in E.D. Pa. NAPLETON'S SCHAUMBURG: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Berman Affirmed NEW YORK, NY: Leslie Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit NORTHERN METAL: Unlawfully Terminates Employees, Cooper Alleges OHIO: Summary Judgment in Thomas v. Bureau of Workers' Comp Flipped OPEN DOOR: Removes Hahn Suit From Cal. Super. to N.D. Cal. ORACLE CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Young Says PRADA USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Refusing Refund Returns PSYCHPLUS MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dickerson Says REGENCELL BIOSCIENCE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due June 23 REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Strauss Investigates Potential Mass Layoff RETAIL MERCHANDISING: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Silva Says RIDGLAN FARMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Animal Cruelty S & H: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Guerero Labor Class Suit SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Lobatos Labor Class Suit SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Ramirez Labor Class Suit SES AI CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations SKATE ONE: Faces Rodriguez Suit in Cal. Sup., Ventura Cty. SOUTH TEXAS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.075-Mil. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Dismissal of Monahan Class Complaint Affirmed TALENTMOVERS LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Schrader Claims TARGET CORP: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Panelli Class Suit THC-ORANGE COUNTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jefferson Alleges TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Summary Judgment in Gosse Suit Affirmed TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Settles Suit Over Personal Injury Protection TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sawyer Alleges USA: Writ of Mandamus Issued to Terminate Contempt Proceedings VACO LLC: Court Partly OKs Bid for Notice in "Montenegro" VGW HOLDINGS: Knapp Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit VIRGIN GALACTIC: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $8.5MM WAGNER SPRAY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Steamers WATKINS SERVICE: $22.4K in Damages Against Chagas Affirmed ********* AAA NORTHEAST: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hellested Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON HELLESTED, individually, and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA NORTHEAST d/b/a AAA DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00160-MRD-AEM (D.R.I., March 16, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in August 2025 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information of Plaintiff/s and other individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, says the suit. AAA Northeast d/b/a AAA Driver Training School, Inc. offers miscellaneous educational driving courses and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Ave. Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com AGS PROTECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JASON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AGS PROTECT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26SMCV01415 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., March 16, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. AGS Protect, Inc. offers security services including event, venue, and personal protection, as well as surveillance and private investigations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 Email: raffi@tapanianlaw.com ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Sued Over Deceptive "Buy One Get One" Deals ----------------------------------------------------------------- The corporate owner of Safeway, Albertsons, and Haggen grocery stores has overcharged Washington consumers in more than 3 million transactions over a five-year period through deceptive "buy one get one free" deals, Attorney General Nick Brown argues in a new consumer protection lawsuit filed on April 28. Boise-based Albertsons Companies, one of the largest grocery store chains in the country, owns and operates all Safeway, Albertsons, and Haggen grocery stores in Washington, totaling 225 retail grocery stores across the state. The grocery stores entice consumers through "buy one get one free" (BOGO) promotions on staples such as bread, cereal, fresh produce, and olive oil. According to the complaint filed in King County Superior Court, the stores artificially hike prices of products slated for the supposed specials in the weeks or months leading up to a "buy one get one free" promotion, overcharging customers who purchase in the interim. Then they lower the prices within about 30 days after the deal is over. The net result is that consumers think they're getting a second item free, but in practice, they're just paying an inflated price for the first item. For example, a Gig Harbor Albertsons hiked the price of a bottle of olive oil to $10.99 for the BOGO promotion from $6.99 a week earlier, an increase of 57%. After the "buy one get one free" deal ended, the store dropped the price back down to $6.99. "We're not going to stand for people getting fleeced by these deceptive practices," Brown said. "That's why we've filed this case. We want to make sure we're protecting people's pocketbooks, and we all know that affordability is a major issue these days. We've got to push back when companies are misleading their customers." From October 2019 to May 2024, the defendants overcharged Washington consumers on more than 3 million transactions, the lawsuit says. The stores brought in as much as $19.7 million by attracting consumers into their stores with these deceptive deals. This is not the first time the defendants have been accused of unfair and deceptive BOGO promotions in stores in the Pacific Northwest. Albertsons paid $107 million to settle a 2016 class action lawsuit related to misleading "buy one get one free" deals in Oregon stores. The companies also settled a proposed class action case filed in 2023 in federal court related to deceptive BOGO promotions in Washington stores. The Attorney General's Office (AGO) alleges the defendants violated the state's Consumer Protection Act by: -- Engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices by artificially increasing the pre-BOGO price of items and then lowering the price shortly after the promotion ends -- Misrepresenting prices and thereby engaging in an unfair method of competition Brown is asking the court to rule that the stores' conduct violates state law, stop the defendants' use of unfair and deceptive BOGO promotions, provide restitution to Washington consumers, and pay civil penalties for each violation of state law as well as pre-judgment interest. Assistant Attorneys General Bob Hyde and Shana Emile and Paralegals Judy Lim and Michelle Paules are handling the case for Washington. [GN] ALERT 360: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Johnson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SHERLONDA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALERT 360 OPCO, INC. d/b/a ALERT 360, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00222-MTS (N.D. Okla., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"), resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their PII to Defendant in exchange for security services and/or employment. The sensitive information provided to Defendant is Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth, email addresses, physical addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, government ID numbers, and/or bank account information. The Defendant's computer systems and servers storing Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive PII were breached by the notorious ransomware group ShinyHunters on April 16, 2026. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members will suffer indefinitely from the substantial and concrete risk that their identities will be (or already have been) stolen and misappropriated. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iii) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and (vi) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, which: (a) remain unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in Defendant's custody, control, or possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII, says the suit. Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated persons whose PII was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Sherlonda Johnson is a citizen and resident of Jackson, MS. Defendant Alert 360 Opco, Inc. d/b/a Alert 360 is a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based security company that provides security systems, monitoring, surveillance, sensors, and other related services to homes and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Ave. Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (929) 677-5144 Telephone: (929) 376-5170 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: kbrian@sirillp.com E-mail: thilton@sirillp.com AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Klutts Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BARRETT KLUTTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-2292 (D. Minn., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Ameriprise clients' personally identifiable information ("Private Information" or "PII"), including sensitive personal information, client related records, and confidential financial records from criminal hackers. The complaint relates that the Defendant required Plaintiff to provide it with substantial amounts of his Private Information. The Plaintiff's Private Information was impacted in the Data Breach. Despite the Data Breach occurring on March 22, 2026, to date, Defendant has inexplicably failed to notify the victims of the Data Breach that their Private Information has been compromised by ShinyHunters ransomware group. Thus, most, if not all Class Members do not know that their Private Information has been compromised, and that they are, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. In failing to adequately protect individuals' Private Information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscate the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of individuals, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now and forever will be at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct, as the Private Information that Ameriprise collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Barrett Klutts is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a Minneapolis-based financial services firm that provides comprehensive wealth management through personalized financial planning, investment advisory and brokerage services, asset management, and insurance and annuity products, while overseeing approximately $1.7 trillion in client assets under management, administration, and advisement through its nationwide network of financial advisors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com AUTOVIN INC: Faces Bobicchio Suit in Cal. Sup., Ventura Cty. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AutoVIN, Inc. The case is captioned as CLAUDIO BOBICCHIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOVIN, INC.; and OPENLANE US, INC., Case No. 2026CUOE064309 (Cal. Sup., Ventura Cty., April 2, 2026). Autovin, Inc. audit and inspection services. The Company offers its services to auto manufacturers, financial institutions, leasing companies, warranty companies and contract service administrators. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Al-Hindi, Talal, Esq. BABO BOTANICALS: Greenbach Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grace Greenbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Babo Botanicals Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03241-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 16, 2026) is a class action aiming to hold Defendant responsible for failing to truthfully and accurately label and market its bath and cosmetic products. The complaint relates that through representations made on the front label of the Products, including Products' plant-theme imagery and the representation that Products are "made with plant-based ingredients", Defendant conveys that the Products are composed exclusively of natural ingredients, free from artificial ingredients. On the contrary, the Products contain a number of artificial ingredients, asserts the complaint. In addition, Defendant reinforces the Misrepresentations through its online listings, which contains further representations regarding the Products' purported natural and plant-based composition, says the suit. Like other reasonable consumers, Plaintiff was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts. Plaintiff Grace Greenbach purchased Defendant's Babo Botanicals Moisturizing Oat & Calendula Shampoo from Amazon.com while residing in Capitola, California, in July 2025. Defendant Babo Botanicals Inc. manufactures, distributes, advertises and sells a line of bath and cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Summary Judgment in "Nia" Class Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MOHAMMAD FARSHAD ABDOLLAH NIA, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-6187 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Bank of America. As part of the United States' comprehensive sanctions against Iran, federal regulations prohibit U.S. financial institutions from providing financial services to accounts of persons who are ordinarily resident in Iran, except when such persons are not located in Iran. To facilitate compliance, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") shields banks from liability for good faith actions taken in order to comply with sanctions regulations. Citing those regulations, the Bank of America administers a Consumer Residency Monitoring ("CRM") policy under which prospective and existing accountholders who are citizens of comprehensively sanctioned countries—like Iran—are periodically required to submit documents to prove that they are not present or permanently resident in sanctioned countries. Plaintiff Nia, who during the times relevant to this appeal was an Iranian citizen living in the United States, held an account with the Bank. He opened a credit card account with the Bank in 2015. Since he was an Iranian citizen at the time, Nia was covered by the Bank's CRM policy. After the Bank erroneously mixed up whether a residency document counted as permanent or merely temporary proof of residency, Nia's account was closed, and Nia brought suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court denied Nia's partial motion for summary judgment and granted in part the Bank's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the IEEPA liability shield foreclosed all of his claims except his ECOA notice claim and associated UCL claim. Nia voluntarily dismissed both surviving claims and brought this appeal. The Ninth Circuit opined that the case turned on the interpretation of the IEEPA liability shield provision. The IEEPA's shield liability provision, 50 U.S.C. Section 1702(a)(3), states: "No person shall be held liable for or with respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or pursuant to and in reliance on, this chapter, or any regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this chapter." The panel held that this provision does not excuse liability only for actions compelled by the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations ("ITSR"). Rather, given the Act's expansive language, the Bank's CRM policy, built around the demands of the ITSR, fell comfortably within the liability shield's ambit. Applying a sanctions compliance program based on citizenship may not be compelled by the ITSR, but it is permitted under the Office of Foreign Asset Control's guidelines, which explicitly allowed the Bank to account for citizenship in a comprehensively sanctioned country in administering its sanctions compliance program. The panel further held that Nia failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact about the Bank's good faith. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court and held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Bank based on IEEPA's liability shield provision. It opined that the relevant agency guidance explicitly permits the Bank to account for citizenship in a comprehensively sanctioned country in administering its sanctions compliance program, and Nia failed to identify a genuine dispute of material fact about the Bank's good faith. Because it found that the Bank's adherence to the ITSR suffices to trigger application of the liability shield, the Ninth Circuit need not reach two of the district court's other conclusions: that regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act can also implicate IEEPA's liability shield, and that the Bank would be entitled to summary judgment even without the liability shield. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/mcxnmon. Jason S. Rathod (argued) -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- and Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Washington, D.C.; Benjamin I. Siminou -- bsiminou@singletonschreiber.com -- and Jonna Lothyan, Singleton Schreiber LLP, San Diego, California; David M. Hundley, Hundley Law Group, Chicago, Illinois; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Michael B. Kimberly (argued), Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, D.C.; Amanda L. Groves and Shawn R. Obi, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, California; Linda T. Coberly, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, Illinois; for Defendant-Appellee. BMO BANK: Faces Chavez Suit in Cal. Sup., Kern County ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against BMO Bank National Association, captioned as DANIELA CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 26CUB01006 (Cal. Sup., Kern Cty., March 16, 2026). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas S. Clark. BMO Bank National Association operates as a full-service bank. The Bank provides personal, business, and corporate bank accounts along with banking, lending, investing, and wealth management solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. BON CHARGE: Court Narrows "King" TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------ Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation, denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Bon Charge, an Australian online wellness company, in a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Phyllis King under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. King, a Delaware resident, texted a keyword to Bon Charge on February 22, 2021, to subscribe to marketing messages and receive a discount code. She subsequently received dozens of telemarketing text messages advertising Bon Charge's products and sales promotions. King added her number to the federal Do-Not-Call Registry in early 2022, but the messages continued, some arriving in the middle of the night or early morning. She did not send a STOP message until late 2024, after which Bon Charge ceased contact. King then filed this putative class action, seeking certification of a class of persons whose numbers were listed on the national Do-Not-Call Registry and who received two or more telemarketing calls or text messages within any 12-month period from Bon Charge or its agents. On personal jurisdiction, Bon Charge moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing that Delaware's long-arm statute did not cover its activities and that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. King disclaimed reliance on the long-arm statute and instead invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). The court found that King's TCPA claims arose under federal law and that Bon Charge conceded it may not be subject to jurisdiction in any single state's courts. Applying the burden-shifting approach adopted by the majority of circuits, the court held that Bon Charge had minimum contacts with the United States by sending targeted marketing texts to American consumers through U.S.-based and international SMS platforms, including PostScript iO and later Klaviyo of Boston. The court further held that those contacts directly gave rise to King's claims and that exercising jurisdiction was fair and reasonable. The court also analyzed the Fifth Amendment's due process limits following the Supreme Court's decision in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 606 U.S. 1 (2025), and concluded that, as an original matter, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause did not limit Congress's authority to authorize federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(k)(2). The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was therefore denied. On the merits, the court addressed three counts under the TCPA. Count II alleged that Bon Charge violated the FCC regulation barring advertisers from initiating telephone solicitations to residential subscribers registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry. The court held that King adequately pleaded all required elements: she registered her number on the Registry around February 23, 2022; she received dozens of texts from Bon Charge more than 30 days after registration; and she used her cell phone as a residential line. The court further held that consent is an affirmative defense, not an element King was required to rebut at the pleadings stage, and that the regulatory consent exception for Do-Not-Call Registry claims requires a signed, written agreement -- something not apparent from the complaint. Count II was therefore allowed to proceed. Count I was substantively identical to Count II but styled as a standalone claim for treble damages based on willful or knowing violations. The court held that the possibility of treble damages is not a separate cause of action but an enhancement of available damages under Section 227(c)(5). Count I was dismissed without prejudice, and King was granted leave to amend Count II to seek enhanced damages. Count III alleged that Bon Charge violated the FCC's quiet-hours rule by sending texts before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time. The court held that unlike the Do-Not-Call Registry provision, the quiet-hours rule does not require written consent -- only prior express consent in the general sense. The phone records attached to King's own complaint showed that she knowingly provided her number to Bon Charge to subscribe to marketing messages and receive a discount, constituting prior express consent. Because the texts therefore did not qualify as telephone solicitations under the quiet-hours provision, Count III was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. A copy of the Court's opinion dated April 30 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZvjzLZ from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Bon Charge is Represented by: Ashley Repp, Esq. Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Esq. Alessandra Glorioso, Esq. Dorsey & Whitney (delaware) LLP 302-397-2513 Email: glorioso.alessandra@dorsey.com repp.ashley@dorsey.com bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com Plaintiff Phyllis King Represented By: Robert Grant Dick, IV, Esq. Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. Aleksandr Litvinov, Esq. Cooch And Taylor, P.A. Email: sasha@skclassactions.com gdick@coochtaylor.com yeremey@skclassactions.com BRIDGE IT: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Feeman Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIDGE IT, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Robert Feeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bridge It, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-3806, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant to protect active-duty military service members from its alleged predatory lending practices that violate the Military Lending Act ("MLA") and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). On July 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss, or, alternatively, to compel arbitration on July 18, 2025. On Mar. 30, 2026, Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. The Court finds that the Defendant's Instant Cash involves an extension of consumer credit under TILA and the MLA. The Plaintiffs have therefore stated a claim for relief, and the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is denied. Moreover, because the Plaintiffs are covered borrowers and have plausibly alleged that Instant Cash extends consumer credit under the MLA, the arbitration clause is unenforceable. The appellate case is styled as Feeman v. Bridge It, Inc., Case No. 26-959, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT FEEMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 - and - Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 530 Fifth Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10016 - and - Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Defendant-Appellant BRIDGE IT, INC. is represented by: Ephraim A. McDowell, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 BRITA PRODUCTS: Dismissal of Brown Without Leave to Amend Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NICHOLAS BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BRITA PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-6678 (9th Cir.), Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order granting Brita's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Brown brought a putative class action against Brita for: (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (4) Breach of Warranty; and (5) Unjust Enrichment/Restitution. Brita manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells water filters and compatible pitchers and dispensers. Its Products appear in stores across the country. Brita offers filters with different capabilities that cater to consumers' various needs and preferences. The Standard Filter, Brita's lowest cost filter, is certified to reduce five contaminants—copper, mercury, cadmium, chlorine, and zinc—to below the levels recommended by the National Sanitation Foundation ("NSF") and United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The Elite Filter, a more expensive model, reduces more than a dozen other contaminants to less than or equal to NSF/EPA recommended levels. Brita's packaging discloses that it reduces certain harmful contaminants, consistent with the capability of the filter purchased. Performance Data Sheets contain more detailed information on exactly which contaminants are filtered by Brita's Products, and to what extent. Brown purchased the Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with the Standard Filter for approximately $15 at a store in Los Angeles in 2022. He alleged that he reviewed the Product's labels and packaging and concluded from various representations that the Product "removes or reduces common contaminants hazardous to health to below lab detectable limits." Specifically, he challenged the following representations on the Product's packaging: BRITA WATER FILTRATION SYSTEM” Cleaner, Great-Tasting Water BROWN V. THE BRITA PRODUCTS CO. 7 Healthier, Great-Tasting Water The #1 FILTER REDUCES Chlorine (taste and odor) and more! REDUCES Chlorine (taste and odor), Mercury, Copper and more Reduces 3X Contaminants He further alleged that Brita fails to state, expressly, clearly, and conspicuously on the Products' packaging and labels that the Products will not remove or reduce contaminants hazardous to health to below lab detection limits. He alleged that, as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions, he purchased the filter, but that he would not have purchased or paid as much as he did for the filter had he known that it does not reduce to below lab detectable levels various hazardous contaminants, including arsenic, chromium-6, nitrate and nitrites, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), radium, total trihalomethanes ("TTHMs"), and uranium, collectively the "Common Hazardous Contaminants." He alleged that no matter where people reside, or their socioeconomic status and educational background, consumers expect that when they purchase a water filtration device, particularly one with the Challenged Representations at issue, that it will remove and effectively reduce hazardous contaminants commonly found in drinking water. Brita moved to dismiss Brown's complaint shortly after removing it to federal court. The district court dismissed the complaint in full, without leave to amend. The district court first analyzed Brown's claims of alleged affirmative misrepresentations. It concluded that his misrepresentation allegations were simply not plausible because no reasonable consumer would adopt Brown's interpretation of Brita's Products' capabilities. The district court next turned to Brown's claims of alleged material omissions. It concluded that Brita had not failed to disclose any material fact because no reasonable consumer would behave differently if he knew that the product did not reduce or remove all common contaminants but only those identified. The district court then examined Brown's "unlawful" claims under the UCL, CLRA, and FAL, in which Brown alleged that Brita violated the California Health & Safety Code by failing to register with a proper regulatory agency and failing to clearly identify on packaging the contaminants that the Products have been certified to remove or reduce. It concluded that Brown lacked standing to bring a UCL, FAL, or CLRA claim based on Brita's admitted failure to register its products because Brown did not purchase any of the unregistered products, and therefore he could not assert these claims on behalf of the class. The district court concluded in the alternative that even if Brown had standing to bring these claims, his claim was based on an alleged failure to have a lab certify that Brita's Products 'remove' common hazardous contaminants, and Brita's Products were in fact certified by NSF and ANSI. Having concluded that the underlying statements were not actionable under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, the district court dismissed Brown's common law claims. Lastly, the district court denied leave to amend noting that it had reviewed the Products' labels and relevant contaminant standards, and that amendment would be futile because Brown's claims failed as a matter of law. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal, limited to two issues. First, Brown argues that the district court erred by dismissing his UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims arising out of Brita's alleged material omissions because the district court did not analyze whether Brita had a duty to disclose information based on: (i) an unreasonable safety hazard, and (ii) a central function defect. Second, Brown argues that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint without sleave to amend. Judge Wardlaw holds that a reasonable consumer would not have attached importance to the fact that Brita's Products do not "remove or reduce common contaminants hazardous to health, including the Common Hazardous Contaminants, to below lab detectable limits." Indeed, knowledge of the Products' limitations is consistent with the disclosures Brita did make. Because a reasonable consumer has been made aware of the Products' limitations, it cannot be said that a reasonable consumer would have been misled by Brita's omission of these limitations on its Products' packaging. Because the complaint fails to meet the reasonable consumer standard, the district court did not err by holding that Brown's material omission claim fails as a matter of law. The district court did not also abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. Judge Wardlaw finds that because Brita's liability under the consumer protection statutes rises and falls with the reasonableness of the alleged expectation, Brown's claims fail as a matter of law. For these reasons, Judge Wardlaw opines that the district court properly granted Brita's motion to dismiss because a reasonable consumer would not expect Brita’s Products to perform according to his subjective and unreasonable expectations. The district court also properly denied Brown leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available https://l1nq.com/ji9cb78. Brent A. Robinson (argued) -- brobinson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Bahar Sodaify -- bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Katelyn M. Leeviraphan -- kleeviraphan@clarkhill.com -- Ashley M. Boulton -- Ashley.Boulton@gtlaw.com -- Ryan Clarkson -- rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Glenn A. Danas -- gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com -- and Alan Gudino -- alan.gudino@bhlb.law -- Clarkson Law Firm PC, Malibu, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jonah M. Knobler (argued) -- jknobler@pbwt.com -- Shelli G. Gimelstein -- sgimelstein@pbwt.com -- and Steven A. Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New York; Mark A. Neubauer -- mneubauer@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. CAPITAL ONE: Wrongfully Closes Credit Card Accounts, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Capital One wrongfully closes certain credit card accounts and retains the rewards earned on those accounts pursuant to an undisclosed rewards cancellation policy even when the cardholder is not at fault, such as when a card has been subject to fraud or unauthorized use. The 49-page breach-of-contract lawsuit contends that Capital One has profited substantially from the wrongful closure of credit card accounts based solely on suspected fraud or activity the financial corporation deems "inconsistent with typical customer account usage." Should such a card account closure occur, consumers are given neither prior notice nor any meaningful opportunity to undo or challenge the closure, or a reasonable opportunity to redeem the awards once their account is closed, the case alleges. The complaint further claims that Capital One, one of the largest credit card issuers nationwide, retains merchant processing fees tied to rewards-generating purchases, even when the rewards are later denied to cardholders. The suit stresses that unredeemed credit card rewards may be lost only when a Capital One cardholder closes their account. "There is no provision allowing the loss of unredeemed rewards when Capital One closes an account for a cardholder who is not in default," the lawsuit says. Capital One offers at least 31 rewards credit cards that include varying cash-back, mileage, or points-based rewards that accrue based on purchases, the case explains. Capital One repeatedly promises in promotional materials, user agreements and its terms and conditions that these rewards are redeemable within 90 days from the date a purchase posts to a cardholder's account, the case says. The lawsuit highlights that consumers reasonably rely on these representations when deciding whether to open an account with the bank. The lawsuit argues that thousands nationwide have been denied earned credit card rewards after Capital One closed their accounts, even when the cardholders followed the terms of their agreements and were in good financial standing. According to the complaint, the plaintiff opened a Capital One Spark Cash Plus rewards credit card in September 2024. The card offered two percent unlimited cash back on purchases, a $2,000 bonus after spending $30,000 in the first three months, and an additional $2,000 bonus for every $500,000 spent in the first year. The card also carried a $150 annual fee, which was to be reimbursed if $150,000 was spent within the year, the suit says. The plaintiff claims that he received account statements from Capital One each month he had the card, along with notices as certain bonus thresholds were reached. Per the case, the last Spend Bonus reward email the plaintiffs received from Capital One was in June 2025, confirming they earned Spend Bonus rewards totaling $8,000. However, on July 21, 2025, Capital One closed the plaintiffs' Spark Cash Plus account with no prior notice, purportedly due to activity "inconsistent with typical customer account usage," the suit says. As a result of the closure, the plaintiff's account was left with a zero-rewards balance, and the man was never issued his earned benefits, e.g., the $150 annual bonus, $8,000 spend bonus and nearly $2,500 in two-percent rewards, the case alleges. According to the complaint, Capital One has refused to pay the plaintiffs the $8,000 they are owed in rewards and their earned two percent purchase rewards, $2,437.39, for the period of around July 21 to August 1, 2025. The lawsuit asserts that the failure to provide earned rewards is a "nationwide problem" as identified by federal regulators. For instance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has warned that "large credit card issuers too often play a shell game . . . boosting their own profits while denying consumers the rewards they've earned," the filing says. The complaint also points to legislation such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which requires lenders to provide a specific explanation when taking adverse action against consumers when their credit status is deficient so as to allow them to take steps to improve it. Similarly, the New York General Business Law covers rewards earned by New Yorkers within 90 days of account cancellation. Because Capital One allegedly failed to provide specific reasoning beyond vague references to "typical customer account usage," the bank deprived cardholders of the financial benefits they were contractually promised, the class action lawsuit says. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff was in default, which he was not, Capital One was not permitted to "unilaterally forfeit [the plaintiff's] earned rewards," the suit adds. The Capital One rewards class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals or entities for whom Capital One closed a credit card account when the cardholder was not in default, and who did not receive payment or redemption of rewards (as cash or mileage) based on their credit card purchases (the "refund class"). The lawsuit also seeks to represent three subclasses, consisting of all members of the refund class who: -- Were issued a Capital One Spark Cash Plus credit card; -- Reside or made purchases with their Capital One credit cards in New York; and -- Whose credit card accounts were cancelled by Capital One for the stated reason that their account activity was "inconsistent with typical customer account usage." [GN] CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Hayes Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as RONISHA L. HAYES, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TRACIE A. TESSIER, an individual MIKE F. EGAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2528379, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02121 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges claims of (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay minimum wages, (3) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, (4) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, (5) failure to pay due wages at termination; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (7) violation of the California Labor Code; (8) unfair competition; and (9) civil penalties under the California Labor Code. CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC distributes building products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dorothy S. Liu, Esq. Emily J. Leahy, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: DLiu@hansonbridgett.com ELeahy@hansonbridgett.com - and - Ryan L. Eddings, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 2440 Tulare Street, Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93721 Telephone: (559) 220-3730 Facsimile: (559) 220-3740 E-mail: REddings@hansonbridgett.com COLLECTION BUREAU: Clark Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW ROSS CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION BUREAU OF AMERICA, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02779-SB-BFM (C.D. Cal., March 16, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., and referred to Magistrate Judge Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff. Collection Bureau of America, Ltd. provides account management, account receivables, and collection services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Appeals Class Cert. Order to 6th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- CUYAHOGA COUNTY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Alanna Dunn, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Cuyahoga County, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00364, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Plaintiffs filed this class action alleging the Cuyahoga County's and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department's deliberate indifference caused them to be over-detained in the Cuyahoga County Jail after the legal basis for detention terminated, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On Apr. 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan granted on Mar. 31, 2026. The Court concludes that common issues predominate over individual ones. The Court rules that a class action enhances efficient and timely processing of claims and promotes judicial economy. The appellate case is captioned as Cuyahoga County, OH v. Dunn, Case No. 26-0302, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ALANNA DUNN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Caryn Cecelia Lederer, Esq. HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DUM, LTD. Three First National Plaza, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 Defendants-Petitioners CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH, et al. are represented by: Stephen W. Funk, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS 222 S. Main Street, Suite 400 Akron, OH 44308 Telephone: (330) 376-2700 D.R. HORTON: Summary Judgment in Zitek Class Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Natalie Zitek, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. D.R. Horton, Inc., Jane Doe #1-10; and, John Doe #1-50, Defendants, D.R. Horton, Inc., Appellant, v. AJ Landscaping & Grading LLC, A/K/A AJ Landscaping & Grading, Inc; Allpro Textures, LCC; Alpha Omega Construction Group, Inc.; American Concrete and Precast, Inc., A/K/A ACP Concrete, Inc.; A&J Framing, Inc; Alpha E.M.C.; A-Z, Inc.; Atlanta Floor Designs Center; A Grade Above Others, LLC; Brand-Vaughan Lumber Co., Inc.; BKF Builders, Inc; Builders Designhouse, LLC; BMC East, LLC D/B/A Coleman Floor, LLC; Builders Firstsource Southeast Group, LLC, A/K/A Builders Firstsource, Inc; Bravo Carpenters, Inc.; Caryl Mechanics II, Inc.; Caryl Mechanicals, Inc.; Cannaday Siding and Gutter, Inc; Cortes Painting, LLC; CBU Enterprises, Inc.; CPI Security Systems, Inc.; Dom Group, LLC; Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.; Five Star Construction Inc.; Five Star Foundations, LLC; Galloway-Bell, Inc., A/K/A Galloway-Bell, Inc. II; BGET Floored, LLC; GBS Building Supply-Us LBM, LLC, A/K/A GBS Building Supply, Inc.; General Shale Brick Inc.; Greener Pastures, Inc. A/K/A Greener Pastures of Aiken, Inc; IBP Asset, LLC D/B/A Blue Ridge Building Products; JLS Masonry, Inc.; Kings Landscaping, LLC; Landshapers, LLC; Lade-Danler, Inc.; Lansing Building Products, Inc.; Long Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.; L&M Electric, Inc.; Manale Landscaping, LLC; MJ Cowboys, LLC; M&L General Construction, LLC A/K/A M&L General Construction, Inc.; M&L Reyna Construction, LLC; M&M Foundations, LLC; Nazareth Builders, LLC; NB Contractors, LLC; Poinsett Development, LLC; Poinsett Homes, LLC; P&T Construction, LLC; P&L Enterprises, LLC; Probuild Company A/K/A Probuild Holdings, Inc.; Rite Rug Co.; Rodney Howard Grading Co.; Sandlapper Concrete, LLC; Sodfather, Inc., Landscape Contractors; Stock Building Supply, LLC; Topbuild Home Services, Inc. A/K/A Gale Gale Contractors Service; Tucker Materials, Inc. A/K/A Gypsum; UTM Enterprises, Inc., Dupree Plumbing Company, Inc.; Willow Tree Landscaping, Inc., Third-Party Defendants, Of which Builder Services Group F/K/A Masco Contractor Services Central Inc. F/K/A Gale Industries, Inc. D/B/A Gale Contractors Services and IBP Assets, LLC D/B/A Blue Ridge Building Products, are the Respondents, Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-172, Appellate Case No. 2023-001401 (S.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the grants of summary judgment. The case stems from D.R. Horton's role as the general contractor for a residential development in Anderson County. Hundreds of homeowners joined a class action against D.R. Horton alleging defective work on their houses. D.R. Horton added dozens of subcontractors as Third-Party Defendants to the suit alleging any defective work was their responsibility. It sued the subcontractors for breach of contract, breach of warranties, negligence, and indemnification. The Respondents are two of those subcontractors/third-party defendants. They sought summary judgment because they believed their work was not implicated in the suit. They also argued that, even if D.R. Horton was entitled to contractual indemnification, the contractual indemnity provisions were unenforceable. They argued D.R. Horton's other claims failed because those claims were just disguised claims for indemnity. The homeowners eventually stipulated that the Respondents' work was not implicated in the suit. At that point, D.R. Horton conceded its claims for breach of warranties and negligence should be dismissed. It contended, however, that its contractual claims (primarily for indemnity but also for breach of contract) remained viable. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Respondents on all claims. Those orders are the subject of this appeal. D.R. Horton insisted that it is not seeking indemnity. Instead, D.R. Horton asserted it has a viable breach of contract claim based on the Respondents' alleged failure to defend it in the class action, which it believed entitled it to reimbursement for its "defense costs and expenses." The Court of Appeals affirmed the grants of summary judgment for three reasons. First, this breach of contract claim was not in the complaint. The breach of contract claim alleged that if the homeowners proved the Respondents' work was defective, the Respondents would have breached their agreements with D.R. Horton. There is no reference to a duty for the Respondents to provide D.R. Horton with an absolute defense to the homeowners' suit, and certainly no claim that they were obligated to defend it even if they did not perform defective work and were not liable to provide indemnity. The complaint's only mention of "defend" is in the context of and together with the claim for indemnity. D.R. Horton cannot seek relief that was not pled. Second, even if this breach of contract claim had been pled, it would be redundant to and merge with the claim for indemnity. D.R. Horton seeks to recover the costs of defending the homeowners' suit, including attorney's fees. These are the same damages available in an indemnity claim. Third and finally, D.R. Horton presented no evidence of damages. D.R. Horton's generic allegation that it defended the Respondents' work and incurred defense costs and expenses in doing so is not sufficient to withstand summary judgment. To the extent D.R. Horton argues it can seek indemnity even if it did not incur fees and costs related to the Respondents' work, the Court of Appeals is not aware of any authority allowing that sort of claim. Each of these reasons is dispositive. Therefore, the Court of Appeals need not address any remaining issues. This reasoning resolves the appeal without reference to the Respondents' joint sur-reply brief. Accordingly, the motion to strike that brief is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/u7wuczk. Carl F. Muller -- carl@carlmullerlaw.com -- of Carl F. Muller, Attorney at Law, P.A., of Greenville; Jason Michael Imhoff -- jimhoff@conlaw.com -- of Imhoff Law Firm, of Greenville; and John T. Crawford, Jr. -- crawford@conlaw.com -- and Kimila Lynn Wooten -- wooten@conlaw.com -- both of Kenison, Dudley & Crawford, LLC, of Greenville, all for Appellant. Timothy J. Newton -- TNewton@murphygrantland.com -- and Everett Augustus Kendall, II -- rkendall@murphygrantland.com -- both of Murphy & Grantland, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent IBP Assets, LLC. Alicia Noel Bolyard, of Charleston, for Respondent Builder Services Group. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Private Info, Rodriguez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANIECE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61161-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding individuals' sensitive personal data on a massive scale. The complaint relates that on February 26, 2025, Defendant first learned that an unauthorized party gained access to its network. An investigation determined that an unauthorized actor gained access to personally identifiable patient information between February 14, 2025, and February 26, 2025. Personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") accessed by the unauthorized party included the names, dates of birth, medical record number, treatment location, procedure type, treating/referring physician, treatment cost information, doctor's name, and health insurance information. In April of 2026, Plaintiff Rodriguez received a notification letter from Defendant alerting her that her Private Information was accessed by cybercriminals. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's security failures enabled the hackers to steal the Private Information of Plaintiff and other members of the Class. These failures put Plaintiff's and other Class members' Private Information at a serious, immediate, and ongoing risk. Additionally, Defendant's failures caused costs and expenses associated with the time spent and the loss of productivity from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate the release of personal data, including constant monitoring of personal banking and credit accounts. Mitigating and dealing with the actual and future consequences of the Data Breach has also created a number of future consequences for Plaintiff and Class members--including, as appropriate, reviewing records of fraudulent charges for services billed but not received, purchasing credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, the imposition of withdrawal and purchase limits on compromised accounts, initiating and monitoring credit freezes, the loss of property value of their Private Information, and the stress, nuisance, and aggravation of dealing with all issues resulting from the Data Breach, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendant responsible for its failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class members' Private Information. Plaintiff Janiece Rodriguez was a patient of DermCare. Defendant DermCare Management, LLC is a medical services provider that specializes in treating vein diseases with locations across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq. Hunter Phares, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-2200 Facsimile: 205-324-7896 E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com rlutz@corywatson.com hphares@corywatson.com DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Serrato Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- NANCY SERRATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61153-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The complaint relates that DermCare became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, DermCare determined that cybercriminals infiltrated this inadequately secured network and gained access to its files between February 14, 2025 and February 26, 2025. According to DermCare, the accessed files contained a wide variety of personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including dates of birth, Social Security numbers, payment card numbers, electronic/digital signatures, medical record numbers, Medicare identification, diagnosis, treatment locations, procedure types, treating/referring physicians, treatment cost information prescription information, doctor's names, health insurance information, health insurance policy numbers, subscriber member numbers, and patient identification numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class members have already lost time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the Data Breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. Plaintiff Nancy Serrato is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant DermCare Management, LLC is a medical services provider that specializes in treating vein diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of DNOW Inc. (NYSE: DNOW) resulting from allegations that DNOW may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased DNOW securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53946 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 20, 2026, StockStory published an article entitled "Why DNOW (DNOW) Shares Are Getting Obliterated Today." The article stated that DNOW shares fell "after the company reported disappointing fourth-quarter 2025 financial results, which included a significant loss and missed Wall Street's expectations." On this news, DNOW's stock fell 19.1% on February 20, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] E-BENEFIT SOLUTION: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that E-Benefit Solution, Inc. has agreed to a class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the employee benefits provider failed to protect private information stored on its systems from a December 2024 data breach. The E-Benefit Solution class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 17, 2026. The deal covers all living United States residents whose private information was compromised by the data breach and who received written or substitute notice about the incident from E-Benefit Solution. The court-approved website for the E-Benefit Solution data breach settlement can be found at EBenefitDataIncident.com. According to the website, E-Benefit settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses stemming from the data breach. Losses covered by this benefit include expenses from identity theft and fraud, obtaining credit reports and credit monitoring, freezing and unfreezing credit, and other data breach-related costs incurred between December 10, 2024 and July 1, 2026. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead file a claim form to receive a $40 cash payment from the deal, with no proof required. In addition to either cash payment option, all settlement class members can file a claim form to receive two years of CyEx Financial Shield Total, which includes financial fraud insurance and monitoring for fraud and identity theft, unauthorized transactions and personal information associated with high-risk transactions. To file an E-Benefit Solution settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All E-Benefit Solution settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 1, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the E-Benefit Solution data breach settlement following a hearing on June 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The E-Benefit Solution class action lawsuit alleged that the insurance and employee benefits company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the information of the current and former employees of its clients, which allegedly led to a targeted cyberattack in December 2024. Per court documents, the files compromised during the data breach contained private information such as names and Social Security numbers. [GN] ESTEE LAUDER: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for CAD$1.515-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit arising from two data incidents involving Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd and The Estee Lauder Companies Inc ("Estee Lauder"). The incidents, which occurred in May and July 2023, potentially compromised the personal and financial information of individuals across Canada. Under the proposed settlement, Estee Lauder will pay CAD $1,515,000 to resolve all claims. Estee Lauder denies all allegations and liability, and no court has found the company liable. The parties agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation. Who Is Affected The settlement covers all persons in Canada whose personal or financial information held by Estee Lauder was compromised or stolen during the May 31, 2023 or July 12, 2023 data incidents, or who received notification from Estee Lauder regarding either incident. Settlement Benefits Class members may be eligible to receive monetary compensation as follows: up to CAD $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses attributable to the data incidents, CAD $150 for those affected by one incident, or CAD $300 for those affected by both incidents. Payments may be increased proportionally if funds remain after all substantiated claims are paid, or may be reduced proportionally if total approved claims exceed available funds. Note that if, after such a proportional reduction, the value of each individual payment would be less than CAD $3.00, no individual payments will be issued to Class Members. In such event, all remaining Settlement Funds will be distributed to the charitable organizations, after payment of the Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives levy (if applicable). Next Steps Class members who wish to participate in the settlement need take no action at this time (and do not have to pay anything). Following court approval, instructions for submitting claims will be available on the settlement website: www.EsteeLauderSettlement.ca. Those wishing to opt out of the class action and settlement must do so by June 1, 2026 at 11:59 PM Eastern Time. Written objections to the settlement must be submitted by May 14, 2026 at 11:59 PM Eastern Time. The Superior Court of Quebec will hold a settlement approval hearing on June 3, 2026 in Montreal. For more information about the settlement, the lawsuit and the relevant deadlines, class members may contact the Claims Administrator via the settlement website: www.EsteeLauderSettlement.ca. For more information and to access the Settlement Agreement, the claim forms, important deadlines, and any updates regarding the settlement approval hearing, please visit the Settlement Website at www.EsteeLauderSettlement.ca or contact the Claims Administrator at: Concilia Services Inc. Attn: Estee Lauder Settlement 5900 Andover Avenue, Suite 1 Montreal, QC, H4T 1H5 Phone: (888) 538-5770 Email: EsteeLauder@conciliainc.com [GN] EXXON MOBIL: Dismissal of Tucker Claims with Prejudice Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY H. TUCKER, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION D/B/A EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Case No. 2025 CA 1172 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirms the trial court's judgment sustaining Defendant Exxon's peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause of action and no right of action and dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against Exxon, with prejudice. The Plaintiff worked for ISC Constructors, LLC as an electrician and was assigned to work at Exxon's plant from approximately June 2012 to January 2014. Tucker initially filed suit on January 23, 2014, for personal injury damages, alleging negligence and intentional acts against Exxon. In April 2014, he filed a supplemental and amended petition, adding a claim against Exxon under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act ("LWPA"), La. R.S. 23:631, et seq., for alleged past due wages, rightfully due, for penalties and attorney's fees, and for all other damages provided in the LWPA. ISC employed the Plaintiff as an electrician and assigned him to work at the Exxon plant. The Plaintiff also alleged that he was jointly employed by ISC and Exxon. While at the Exxon plant, he often worked with and was supervised by Exxon employees. He alleged that he was required to arrive to work at Exxon 20 to 30 minutes before the start of his 6:30 a.m. shift, but was never paid for any time, prior to 6:30 am. According to him, Exxon is liable to him for the non-payment of wages. He further alleged that he made demand upon Exxon for the past due wages to no avail. In December 2016, Tucker obtained leave to file a second supplemental and amended petition, incorporating all allegations made in the original petition and the supplemental and amended petition and adding ISC as Defendant to his individual LWPA claim. He also modified the allegations regarding his employment, stating he was employed by ISC and/or Exxon. On March 2021, Tucker obtained leave to file a third amended petition, which incorporated all allegations made in prior petitions, added class action claims against the dDfendants under the LWPA, and made additional allegations concerning his LWPA claim. While no change was made to the allegation that he was employed by ISC and/or Exxon, he made the following modifications to prior allegations: 4. Despite the fact that Exxon required the ISC employees to arrive at work 20 to 30 minutes prior to the start of their daily shift at 6:30 am, these employees were never paid for any time prior to 6:30 am. 5. Petitioner and other ISC employees were employed by the hour. The Plaintiff filed a fourth amended petition and again incorporated all allegations contained in his previous petitions. He alleged, in part, as follows: 5. Petitioner alleges that he accepted his employment with the understanding that, as a term of his employment, he would be paid wages for all of the time that he was required by Exxon and/or ISC to be present on the premises of the Exxon Plant. 10. Petitioner and Class Representative Jeffrey Tucker asserts, individually and on behalf of all Class members, that Exxon and ISC knowingly and systematically failed to pay workers for time that those workers were required by Exxon and ISC to be on the job site in accordance to the terms of their employment. The Plaintiff also alternatively claimed the Defendants were unjustly enriched by labor performed by the class members and owed compensation to the class members. In response to the fourth amended petition, Exxon raised peremptory exceptions asserting the objections of no cause of action and no right of action. It maintained that, even taking the allegations as true, the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action under the LWPA, as he did not plead that he was owed wages under a term of employment. Further, Exxon maintained that the Plaintiff had no right of action for unjust enrichment because another remedy existed at law. The Plaintiff opposed the exceptions. At the January 13, 2025 hearing, the trial court sustained Exxon's exceptions and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against Exxon, with prejudice. A judgment memorializing the ruling was signed on February 3, 2025. The Plaintiff appealed. In his sole assignment of error, he maintains the trial court erred in dismissing his LWPA claim. He argues that he sufficiently pled a cause of action under the LWPA and that the ruling of the trial court should be reversed. The Court of Appeal disagrees. It finds that the Plaintiff's petitions fail to allege that, upon his termination of employment with Exxon, Exxon failed to pay him wages or compensation earned during a pay period. Further, he did not allege that he was owed wages by Exxon under the terms of his employment. Notwithstanding, he argues to the Court of Appeal that an obligation for Exxon to pay plaintiff's wages for this time should be implied, noting that an employment agreement is a contract. Taking the Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court of Appeal finds that it was neither an internal policy nor a normal practice of Exxon to payhim for the time prior to his shift. The allegation that Exxon never paid the Plaintiff for any time prior to 6:30 a.m. belies his contention that payment for this time was a term of his employment. There is no allegation that the Plaintiff and Exxon ever agreed or had a meeting of the minds regarding compensation for the time in question. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal holds that the Plaintiff's sole assignment of error lacks merit. It finds no error in the trial court's sustaining of Exxon's peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, dismissing his claims against Exxon, with prejudice and without the opportunity to amend his petition pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 934. For these reasons, the trial court's February 3, 2025 judgment, dismissing Tucker's claims against Exxon with prejudice is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Tucker. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available https://sl1nk.com/n439myf. Matthew S. Foster -- pstaub@taggartmorton.com -- Janet D. McGrew -- jmcgrew@taggartmorton.com -- Perry R. Staub, Jr. -- pstaub@taggartmorton.com -- New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant, Jeffrey H. Tucker. Scott A. Huffstetler -- mfoster@keanmiller.com --, Erin L. Kilgore, Chelsea G. Caswell -- Chelsea.caswell@keanmiller.com -- Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, Exxon Mobil Corporation d/b/a ExxonMobil Chemical Company. FINANCIAL CREDIT: Clark Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections --------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW ROSS CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL CREDIT NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02752-SVW-MBK (C.D. Cal., March 16, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson, and referred to Magistrate Judge Michael B. Kaufman. Financial Credit Network, Inc. offers debt collection services include credit reporting, skip tracing, legal , training and an online client portal. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com FLORIDA PHYSICIAN: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Florida Physician Specialists data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Florida Physician Specialists data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Florida Physician Specialists Security Incident: What Happened? Florida Physician Specialists, which has 13 locations in and around Jacksonville, has reported a data breach involving unauthorized access to its network. According to a notice on the company's website, the unauthorized access occurred from approximately November 27 to November 29, 2025. An investigation, concluded by April 6, 2026, revealed that full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or state identification numbers, other government identification numbers, financial account information, credit or debit card information, medical information, and health insurance policy information may have been compromised. Florida Physician Specialists began notifying potentially affected individuals by mail on April 24, 2026. What You Can Do After the Florida Physician Specialists Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Florida Physician Specialists data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Florida Physician Specialists to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] FUNKO LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Juarez Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL Q. JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUNKO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03502 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Funko, LLC designs and produces toys and collectibles. The Company sells collectible figures and related products through retail and e-commerce channels, and licenses pop culture brands for merchandising. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Cochran Sues Over Defective Cadillac Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY J. COCHRAN; and CHARLENE RIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05329-BHS (W.D. Wash., April 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant arising from the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of defective Cadillac Lyriq electric vehicles. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Cadillac Lyriq suffers from defects in its electrical architecture, software systems, battery management modules, and vehicle control networks that can cause the vehicle to become nonfunctional or "bricked," rendering it incapable of starting, charging, or operating. When the defects manifest, the vehicle may become completely inoperable, requiring towing and prolonged dealer service, says the suit. General Motors LLC provides automobiles. The Company engages in the business of designing, manufacturing and sale of cars, trucks and automobile parts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darrell L. Cochran, Esq. PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA, PLLC 909 A Street, Suite 700 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654 GIVEBUTTER INC: McClintock Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as WHITNEY MCCLINTOCK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIVEBUTTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-02968-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02668 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and seeks treble damages; violations of Delaware's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and is also pursuing causes of action for tortious interference and unjust enrichment. In addition to treble damages, Plaintiff seeks restitution, disgorgement, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Givebutter, Inc. operates as a nonprofit fundraising and donor management platform.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Stockwell, Esq. Patrick Hammon, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 212.858.1000 E-mail: matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com patrick.hammon@pillsburylaw.com HOME DEPOT: Schmierer Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM F. SCHMIERER; MARK AUSSEIKER; ELZY LINDER; JOHN HOPTON; and MICHAEL J. HARHAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 26CV008145 (Cal. Sup., Sacramento Cty., April 2, 2026) alleges violation of the ALPR Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants have installed automated license plate recognition ("ALPR") cameras, primarily through their ALPR vendor Flock Group, Inc., d/b/a Flock Safety, at the entrances and exits of their parking lots of their California stores. The Defendants failed to implement adequate accuracy verification measures. As a result, class members whose license plates were misread by Home Depot's Flock cameras are at risk of being wrongly placed on a law enforcement hot list, wrongly stopped at gunpoint, wrongly arrested, or wrongly detained based on a Flock misread. These are not speculative harms, say the Plaintiffs. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates home improvement retail stores. The Company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn, garden, kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Heather M. Lopez, Esq. Mike Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 Email: hlopez@milberg.com macciavatti@milberg.com IXL LEARNING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Shanahan Upheld in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GRETCHEN SHANAHAN, on behalf of herself and her minor children A.S. and B.S.; AMY WARREN, on behalf of herself and her minor child B.W.; KIMBERLY WHITMAN, on behalf of herself and her minor child H.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. IXL LEARNING, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-6985 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order denying IXL's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs-Appellees, three mothers and their minor children, ER-151-53 brought this putative class action lawsuit against Defendant-Appellant IXL, an educational technology company that provides software services that form part of the Plaintiffs' children's school curriculum. They allege that IXL collected and monetized their and their children's data without consent. IXL moved to compel arbitration, pointing to an arbitration clause in its terms of service. It shared these Terms with the Plaintiffs' school districts, but there is no evidence that the Terms were shared with or expressly consented to by the Plaintiffs. The district court denied the motion, and IXL timely appealed. IXL argued that the schools were the Plaintiffs' agents under California law. Under this theory, it contended that the schools were authorized to consent to arbitration on the Plaintiffs' behalf. Because the district court found that IXL submitted sufficient proof to demonstrate the school districts' assent to the Terms, IXL construed this statement in the Terms as an express representation by the schools of authority to act on the parents' behalf—i.e., as the parents' agent. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that state law governs whether arbitration can be compelled against a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement. The representation in the Terms that IXL relies on was made only by the purported agents—it is the schools, not the parents, that represented and warranted that they have authority to consent on the parents' behalf. And the schools represented that they had the authority to consent on parents' behalf only as to data collection. Thus, even if binding on the parents, the relevant provision in the Terms does not show that the schools were authorized to bind the parents to arbitrate. Next, IXL argued that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act ("COPPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 6502(a)(1) et seq., created a presumptive agency relationship between the schools and the parents, such that the schools could consent to arbitrate on the Plaintiffs' behalf. The Ninth Circuit found nothing in the text of COPPA or of the COPPA Rule even suggests (much less establishes) that operators may treat schools as parents' agents for the purpose of obtaining verifiable parental consent to arbitrate. Hence, it agreed with the district court's analysis, and affirmed its finding that the schools were not the Plaintiff's agents. It held, however, that the district court misallocated the burden of proof on mutual assent. At this stage, the Plaintiffs have not carried that burden. They did not produce evidence establishing that they could not avoid using IXL's products while complying with the Kansas truancy laws. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's holding that IXL bore the burden to prove voluntariness, and remanded for the district court to consider whether each Plaintiff validly ratified the Terms. The district court will permit reasonable discovery on at least these subjects: (i) whether and when each Plaintiff became aware or ought reasonably to have become aware of the existence and content of the Terms; (ii) whether the version of the Terms of which each Plaintiff became aware or ought reasonably to have become aware contained an arbitration agreement substantively similar to the one discussed in IXL's motion to compel; (iii) whether each Plaintiff child continued using IXL’s products, services, or both after learning of the Terms; (iv) whether each Plaintiff's continued use amounted to a retroactive ratification of the arbitration clause as to prior use; and (v) whether each Plaintiff's continued use was voluntary. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://l1nq.com/ot0ok7w KAPLAN NORTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mailhoit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA MAILHOIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61159-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"). According to the complaint, on March 17, 2026, Kaplan disclosed to government authorities that it had recently concluded its investigation of an incident involving unauthorized access to its computer network. According to Kaplan, "an unauthorized actor accessed Kaplan's computer servers between October 30, 2025 and November 18, 2025 and took certain files." Kaplan further disclosed that the "unauthorized actor" gained access to the names, Social Security numbers, and/or driver's license numbers of hundreds of thousands of its customers. The complaint relates that on October 31, 2025 -- the day after the aunauthorized actor gained access to Plaintiff's PII in Kaplan's computer network -- the Plaintiff's identity was stolen. This has resulted in an unwarranted 100-point decrease in Plaintiff's credit score. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy the harms caused by the data breach individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII was exposed. Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief, including substantial improvements to Kaplan's data security policies and practices. Plaintiff Christina Mailhoit is a resident of Blackfoot, Idaho, and a former Kaplan student. Defendant Kaplan North America, LLC is an educational services provider that offers test preparation for college, graduate school, and medical school exams, professional licensing and certification for real estate and home inspection professionals, and academic support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: tmathews@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Frank Appeals Approved Settlement to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ THEODORE H. FRANK, objector, is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for final settlement approval in the lawsuit entitled D. Joseph Kurtz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-1142, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought this suit before the court on February 21, 2014 alleging deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and sale of Kimberly-Clark's flushable wipes that cause harm to plumbing and sewer system. On Aug. 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for final settlement approval, which Judge Pamela K. Chen granted on Mar. 12, 2026. The Court hereby approves and awards: (1) attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,169,335.02; (2) litigation expenses and charges in the amount of $138,331.23; and (3) class representative incentive awards of $10,000 and $5,000 to named Plaintiffs Kurtz and Honigman, respectively. The appellate case is captioned as Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. 26-946, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee D. JOSEPH KURTZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Francis P. Karam, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 - and - Theodore Pintar, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendants-Appellees KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 - and - Daniel A. Spira, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 - and - Courtney Elizabeth Scott, Esq. TRESSLER LLP 11 Times Square, Suite 3102 New York, NY 10036 - and - Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Objector-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by: Adam Ezra Schulman, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 KLOECKNER METALS: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Bailey Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KLOECKNER METALS CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. 1:26-cv-02142-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 20, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The complaint relates that as part of its business, Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. On February 23, 2026, Kloeckner discovered an unauthorized actor gained access to its computer network between February 17, 2026 and February 23, 2026, during which certain files were accessed and copied from the system. Kloeckner determined that the compromised files contained the information of thousands of individuals, including names and Social Security numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. The Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class members have already lost time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the Data Breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. Plaintiff Kevin Bailey is a citizen and resident of Fulton County, Georgia. He is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Kloeckner Metals Corporation is a leading sheet and metal manufacturer and distributor with over 55 branches across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com LAW SCHOOL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims in "Risner" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Linvel James Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., Civil Action No. 25-4461 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Murphy of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss all three antitrust claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Plaintiff sued the Law School Admission Council, Inc. (LSAC), a central clearinghouse for law school applicants, alleging that it fixed application-services prices and maintained a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act. All 197 American Bar Association-approved law schools are LSAC members, and the LSAC's Board of Trustees is elected by and consists entirely of member law school employees. In 2025, there were over 60,000 applicants, amounting to over 500,000 law school applications. To apply in 2026, an applicant must pay a minimum of $260 — an initial fee of $215 and an additional $45 per application. In the summer of 2022, the Plaintiff paid $510 to the LSAC and applied to seven law schools. He was not permitted to apply by other means. The Plaintiff brought three claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Count I alleged a horizontal restraint of trade in the J.D. education market under Sherman Act Section 1. Count II alleged a horizontal restraint in the law school application platform market, also under Section 1. Count III alleged monopolization of the law school application platform market under Sherman Act Section 2. The court found that the Plaintiff plausibly alleged concerted action and has antitrust standing as a direct purchaser from the LSAC. However, the court held that the rule of reason — not the per se rule — applied to the alleged restraints, given their mix of vertical and horizontal components and the admitted benefits of centralized application processing. On market definition, the court dismissed both Section 1 claims. The J.D. education market was implausibly alleged because the complaint failed to account for the interchangeability or cross-elasticity of demand among law schools. The law school application platform market was similarly deficient: the complaint simultaneously asserted that other application platforms were inadequate substitutes and that law school admissions posed no unique technical requirements that experienced vendors serving other professional schools could not address — a directly contradictory position that warranted dismissal. The court further held that, even assuming the law school application platform market were adequately pled, it constitutes a two-sided transaction platform. Because the LSAC cannot make a sale on the applicant-facing side without simultaneously doing so on the law school-facing side, the Plaintiff was required to allege anticompetitive harm across the market as a whole. The complaint's alleged harm — supracompetitive prices on the applicant side only — was therefore insufficient. As to the monopolization claim under Section 2, the Plaintiff failed to allege both supracompetitive pricing and restricted output, as required. To the contrary, law school applicants increased every year since the 2023 cycle, with the 2025 cycle seeing more than a 23% increase — the opposite of reduced output. Indirect evidence of monopoly power also failed because the Plaintiff did not plausibly define the relevant market. Accordingly, the court dismissed all three counts without prejudice and granted the Plaintiff 14 days to file an amended complaint. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION dated April 28 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k3vrQ8 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Law School Admission Council, Inc. is represented by: Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. Paul T. Vanderslice, Esq. Kimberly Chen, Esq. George P. Varghese, Esq. Medha Gargeya, Esq. David Z. Gringer, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP Email: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com paul.vanderslice@wilmerhale.com kimberly.chen@wilmerhale.com george.varghese@wilmerhale.com medha.gargeya@wilmerhale.com david.gringer@wilmerhale.com Plaintiff Linvel James Risner is represented by: Peter Morris McCall, Esq. Bennett Rawicki, Esq. William McCormick Burgess, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN, PLLC Email: pmccall@hilgersgraben.com brawicki@hilgerslaw.com wburgess@hilgerslaw.com LIFE CARE: Superior Court's Dismissal of Corbin Class Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DESTINY CORBIN, an individual, and MELANIE ANDREWS, an individual, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Appellant, v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., a Tennessee corporation, Respondent, Case No. 88134-5-I (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reversed the superior court's dismissal of Corbin's complaint. On January 12, 2022, Lamont Atkinson brought putative class action claims against Life Care for its alleged failure to pay regular and overtime hours to its employees for testing and screening for COVID-19. Atkinson worked at Life Care as a certified nursing assistant and alleged he was required to undergo COVID-19 testing and screening without pay. Life Care operates facilities in Washington where it provides nursing and rehabilitation services. The Atkinson complaint proposed class certification for two classes: a screening class, and a testing class. Before the court ruled on the parties' motions for and against class certification, Atkinson and Life Care reached a proposed class settlement. In both the unopposed motions for preliminary and final approval of class action settlement, the proposed class included "all Washington State employees of Defendant who worked for Defendant in the position of non-exempt hourly worker and who worked at least one shift between February 1, 2020, and the date of preliminary settlement approval." The unopposed motion for preliminary approval and the proposed class settlement agreement contained the same release language for settlement class members. In the class settlement agreement, the settlement class members released Life Care from any and all claims that were or could have been asserted in this lawsuit for unpaid wages due to allegedly unpaid COVID-19 testing and screening relating to the Participating Class Member's employment with Defendant during the Class Period, including any and all associated liquidated damages, penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and/or any related sums relating to or arising from those claims, whether founded on state, federal or local law. In contrast, the named plaintiff class representatives in Atkinson, Atkinson and another class representative, agreed to a broader release for their personal claims. They released Life Care from all known and unknown claims, promises, causes of action, that they presently may have relating to disputes of any nature arising out of their employment with Defendant (including but not limited to those pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C., Sections 201-219 (FLSA), Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), ch. 49.46 RCW, Washington Wage Rebate Act, RCW 49.52.050, and any other federal, state, or local law related to wages, meal periods, or rest periods), including any related penalties, liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and/or costs to any of the Released Parties through the date of preliminary approval by the Court. On December 6, 2024, the superior court granted Atkinson's unopposed motion for final approval and certified the settlement class as proposed, resolving claims for unpaid COVID-19 testing and screening time under the MWA. The settlement agreement distributed the settlement amount based upon how many minutes class members were off the clock when testing and screening. The court ordered that "all members of the Class: (1) are bound by this Final Judgment; and (2) are forever barred from instituting, maintaining, or prosecuting any claim released by the Settlement Agreement." Five days after the court granted final approval to the Atkinson settlement, on December 11, 2024, Corbin filed a putative class action complaint against Life Care for its alleged willful failure to provide compensation to class members for missed meal periods. Corbin proposed a class including "all hourly, non-exempt Life Care employees who missed a meal period and were not paid compensation in addition to the pay for the hours they worked during the meal period at any time from December 11, 2021 to the date of certification of the class." Corbin alleged Life Care failed to ensure class members followed policy and, by understaffing its locations, prevented staff from taking meal breaks. The same attorneys who negotiated the Atkinson settlement represent Corbin. Corbin was a member of the Atkinson settlement class. Life Care moved to dismiss Corbin's complaint, arguing it is barred by claim preclusion. The superior court dismissed Corbin's complaint. Corbin unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration and appealed both the orders granting dismissal and denying reconsideration. The Court of Appeals held that the settling parties' intent determined the preclusive effect of a class action settlement agreement. It found that the class members' release was specifically limited—in contrast to the named-plaintiff class representatives release—to extend only to claims for COVID-19 testing and screening, and these were the only claims described in the operative complaint, class notice, and motions for preliminary or final approval. Moreover, the documents described exclusively claims based on COVID-19 testing and screening. This scope of release falls clearly within the identical factual predicate supported by the operative pleadings, class notice, and motions for settlement approval. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals concluded the parties intended that the absent class members release only claims for unpaid COVID-19 testing and screening. As a result, the Atkinson settlement does not have preclusive effect barring Corbin's claims for allegedly uncompensated missed meal periods. Because the settling parties’ intent controls the preclusive effect of a class action settlement agreement, and the parties here intended to release only claims due to unpaid COVID-19 testing and screening, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/7s5hb80. Donald W. Heyrich, HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, 600 Stewart St Ste 901, Seattle, WA, 98101-1225. Jason Andrew Rittereiser, HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, 600 Stewart St Ste 901, Seattle, WA, 98101-1225, Rachel M. Emens, HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, 600 Stewart St Ste 901, Seattle, WA, 98101-1225, Henry Brudney, HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, 600 Stewart St Ste 901, Seattle, WA, 98101-1225, Joseph William Wright, HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP, 600 Stewart St Ste 901, Seattle, WA, 98101-1225, Counsel for Appellant(s). Barbara J. Duffy -- duffyb@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP, 1301 2nd Ave Ste 2800, Seattle, WA, 98101-3808, Erin M Wilson -- wilsonem@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP, 1301 2nd Ave Ste 2800, Seattle, WA, 98101-3808, Dana Kelsey Mydland -- mydlandd@ballardspahr.com -- Attorney at Law, 1301 2nd Ave Ste 2800, Seattle, WA, 98101-3808, Callie Anne Castillo -- castilloc@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP, 1301 2nd Ave Ste 2800, Seattle, WA, 98101-3808, Counsel for Respondent(s). LIFE INSURANCE: Caton Sues Over Unlawful Life Insurance Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNETTE CATON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF HER ERISA-GOVERNED EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PLANS, Plaintiff vs. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02531-JMY (E.D. Pa., April 17, 2026) is a class action to recover unjust losses and obtain equitable relief. Plaintiff SHANNETTE CATON is a participant in and beneficiary of an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan. Her husband, Alfred Caton, died on April 14, 2024. Defendant LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA is the insurer and claims fiduciary responsible for underwriting, administering, and adjudicating benefits. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff elected $100,000 in dependent life insurance coverage insuring the life of her late husband, Alfred Caton. The policy language identifies a guaranteed issue amount of $50,000, with higher amounts allegedly requiring EOI approval. Defendant accepted Plaintiff's election. Defendant initiated and maintained premium deductions corresponding to the full $100,000 in life insurance coverage. According to the complaint, the Defendant chose to accept premiums for the full $100,000 in coverage, not the lower amount of premiums corresponding to the lesser $50,000 coverage, and later denied coverage when benefits became due because Defendant claims it wrongfully received the premiums for the full $100,000 in coverage. After the insured's death, Defendant paid only $50,000 in coverage benefits. Defendant denied the remaining $50,000 based on lack of EOI. The Defendant had not made any determination regarding insurability prior to death. Defendant deferred that determination until after the claim was submitted. The Plaintiff reasonably believed full coverage was in force. That belief was induced by Defendant's conduct, including: a. acceptance of the election, b. ongoing premium deductions, and c. incorrect notices regarding coverage status. The Plaintiff and the Plan suffered loss as a result, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wentz, Esq. THE BOONSWANG LAW FIRM 1500 Sansom Street, Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-940-8900 E-mail: Michael@boonswanglaw.com - and - Joseph Mattia, Esq. THE BOONSWANG LAW FIRM 1500 Sansom Street, Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-940-8900 E-mail: Joseph@boonswanglaw.com MAKE IT RIGHT: Partial Summary Judgment in Francis Suit Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LLOYD FRANCIS, ET AL, v. MAKE IT RIGHT-NEW ORLEANS, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2026-C-0052 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, granted Brad Pitt's writ application and vacated the trial court's judgment granting the Respondents' motions for partial summary judgment. The matter arises from a class action lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs against the MIR Defendants, Make It Right Foundation; Make It Right-New Orleans, LLC; and Make It Right - New Orleans Housing; and numerous officers, directors, and/or board members of the MIR Defendants, including Relator Brad Pitt. Pitt seeks review of the trial court's December 12, 2025 judgment which granted the motions for partial summary judgment of Respondents, TIG Insurance Company and First Mercury Insurance Company, as to whether they owed Pitt a duty to indemnify and defend. On September 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the MIR Defendants. Thereafter, they filed first, second, and revised second supplemental and amending petitions for damages. In general, the Petitions alleged the MIR Defendants and/or Pitt hired architects and contractors to build over one hundred residences for the Plaintiffs and that construction defects in the houses have resulted in damages to their homes, other personal property, and bodily injuries. The MIR Defendants and Pitt filed a third party demand against their insurers, which included Respondent First Mercury. Subsequently, the Relator also filed a third party demand against Respondent TIG. First Mercury filed a crossclaim against TIG seeking indemnification. On May 23, 2025, First Mercury filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting it had no duty to defend and indemnify the MIR Defendants based on the allegations raised in the Plaintiffs' Petitions. TIG also filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the MIR Defendants and Pitt on the duty to defend on August 20, 2025. Pitt, the MIR Defendants, and the Plaintiffs opposed the Respondents' motions for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs, with leave of court, filed their Third Supplemental and Amending Petition on September 30, 2025. After a hearing on the motions for partial summary judgment, the trial court rendered judgment on December 12, 2025, granting the motions with respect to the Plaintiffs' original, first supplemental, and second amended and revised second amended petition. The trial court found that neither First Mercury nor TIG have any duty to defend or indemnify the defendants for the claims asserted in those petitions. From this judgment, Pitt filed the present notice of intent to seek supervisory writs. The Relator alleges the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) The trial court erred in refusing to consider the Plaintiffs' Third Supplemental and Amended Petition in determining whether Respondents had a duty to defend and indemnify; (2)The trial court erred in failing to follow binding Louisiana jurisprudence that disputed issues of fact precluded summary judgment where the Plaintiffs alleged damages, which, if proven, would not be unambiguously precluded from the scope of coverage provided within the policies to Relator; (3)The trial court erred in reading language into the "Your Product" exclusion when it applied the "Your Product" exclusion to bodily injury claims; despite the language of the "Your product exclusion applying only to "property damage;" and (4)The trial court erred in granting relief to First Mercury—which it did not pray for—where First Mercury did not file a summary judgment motion against Pitt. Based on its de novo of the policies' terms, exclusions, and the allegations raised in the Plaintiffs' Petitions, the Court of Appeals cannot say that the eight corners of the policies unambiguously preclude any duty for the Respondents to defend and indemnify Pitt. It also takes judicial notice that adequate discovery has not taken place on the merits of the Plaintiffs' complaint in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 966A(3). Consequently, the Respondents cannot show that no genuine issues of disputed facts remain regarding the facts alleged and the scope of the damages claimed in the Plaintiffs' Petitions to entitle them to summary judgment relief. The grant of summary judgment was premature. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals finds merit to Pitt's position that the trial court erred because genuine issues of dispute facts remain and the policies' provisions do not conclusively preclude coverage for the claims raised in the Plaintiffs' Petitions. Having determined that the policies do not unambiguously preclude a duty to defend and indemnify and the trial court's grant of summary judgment was premature, the Court pretermits discussion of Pitt's remaining assignments of error. Based on these reasons, the Court of Appeals grants Pitt's writ application and vacates the trial court's December 12, 2025 judgment granting the Respondents' motions for partial summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/g0tz0ca. Patrick S. McGoey, Kyle Schonekas, Andrea V. Timpa, McClain Schonekas, Sarah B. Belter-Pylant, SCHONEKAS, EVANS, McGOEY & McEACHIN, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY — PLANTIFF/APPLICANT BRAD PITT. David F. Bienvenu -- davidb@spsr-law.com -- Joshua D. Ecuyer -- joshh@spsr-law.com -- SIMON, PERAGLNE, SMITH, & REDFEARN, LLP, New Orleans, LA, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT - TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY COMPANY. Christina A. Culver, THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS, & IRONS, LLP, New Orleans, LA, COUNSEL FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT/RESPONSDENT-FIRST MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY. MARYLAND: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Palmer Suit to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF MARYLAND is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jamien Palmer, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of Maryland, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00899-CDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The suit is brought against the Defendants for unconstitutional over detention, violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. On May 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Charles D. Austin granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 31, 2026. The appellate case is styled as State of Maryland v. Jamien Palmer, Case No. 26-147, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JAMIEN PALMER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Esq. Kristen Marie Mack, Esq. HANSEL LAW, PC 2514 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Telephone: (301) 461-1040 (828) 243-7949 Defendants-Petitioners STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. are represented by: Michael O'Connor Doyle, Esq. Veronica Natasha Love, Esq. Merrilyn Elise Ratliff, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 6776 Reisterstown Road Baltimore, MD 21215 Telephone: (410) 585-3070 - and - Laura Mullally, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (443) 204-0675 MARYLAND: Court Revises Briefing Sched for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to revise the Parties' proposed briefing schedule for class certification: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the Defendants' opposition to class certification no later than 30 days after depositions are completed; 2. The Plaintiffs shall file their Opposition to the Defendants' motion to exclude no later than 30 days after depositions are completed; and 3. The Defendants shall file their reply to the Plaintiffs' oppositions to the Defendants' motion to exclude no later than 29 days after the Plaintiffs' opposition is filed. The Defendant is the state's human services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated April 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5if7RK at no extra charge.[CC] MERRILL LYNCH: Summary Judgment in Milligan Class Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLY MILLIGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN/JANE DOE 1, the Senior Vice President-Human Resources Global Banking and Global Wealth and Investment Management Administration at Bank of America Corp., Defendant. SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE CENTER ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION; THE AMERICAN BENEFITS COUNCIL; THE ERISA INDUSTRY COMMITTEE; SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION, Amici Supporting Appellee, Case No. 25-1385 (4th Cir.), Judge Andrew Wynn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's order granting Merrill Lynch's motion for summary judgment. The dispute asks whether an employer's incentive compensation program qualifies as an "employee pension benefit plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Milligan worked as an Advisor for Merrill Lynch from 2000 to 2021. He took part in a compensation program known as the WealthChoice Awards. This program granted annual, performance-based cash awards to top-producing advisors. To qualify, an advisor needed to meet specified revenue targets and remain employed with the firm for eight years following the award date. Although a hypothetical account tracked the performance of a benchmark investment, no actual funds were set aside during the vesting period. Advisors who left the firm before the vesting period ended generally forfeited their awards. Once the awards vested, payment became obligatory and was typically made promptly, often while the advisor was still employed. The program's primary goal was to encourage employee retention and productivity rather than to serve as a source of retirement income. In 2021, he voluntarily resigned to cofound a competitor investment firm. In accordance with WealthChoice Award program policies, his voluntary resignation canceled the unvested Awards that he'd been granted but had not yet earned. Disappointed by the cancellation of his WealthChoice Awards, Milligan filed a putative class-action complaint alleging that the WealthChoice Award plan qualifies as an "employee pension benefit plan" under ERISA. J.A. 14–34. Milligan alleged that the WealthChoice Award program violated ERISA's vesting and anti-forfeiture requirements. He further alleged that the plan administrator breached her fiduciary duty in implementing the plan and sought declaratory relief and reformation of the plan. Merrill Lynch moved for summary judgment, arguing that the WealthChoice Award program is not an ERISA-covered plan. The district court granted Merrill Lynch's motion for summary judgment, and Milligan timely appealed. Milligan argues that this Court should disregard the Department of Labor's bonus program regulation because it is inconsistent with the clear statutory language of ERISA, and the Secretary of Labor has no authority to exempt plans from ERISA if those plans fall within the statute's definition of a pension plan. Judge Wynn is convinced that the WealthChoice Award program comfortably qualifies as a bonus payment plan. First, the Program has heightened eligibility requirements. Only high-performing Advisors who generate more than a predetermined minimum amount of revenue for the company qualify. Second, the revenue threshold is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition to earn WealthChoice Awards. Employees only earn the award if they remain continuously employed through the vesting date. Third, the Program does not set aside any employee income. Fourth, Advisors cannot choose to have their WealthChoice Award payments disbursed at termination or during retirement—vesting triggers automatic and mandatory payment. Fifth, employees are explicitly told that the purpose of the Program is to encourage Advisors to remain employed by the Company and its Subsidiaries, and there is no evidence that it is otherwise promoted as a pension plan. Finally, the amount of an Advisor's WealthChoice Award is determined by that Advisor's contribution to firm revenue, which is at least somewhat correlated with the firm's overall performance, another feature common to bonus plans. Accordingly, Judge Wynn agrees with the district court that the WealthChoice Awards program qualifies as an excepted bonus payment program and is not an employee pension benefit plan. Therefore, he affirms the district court's order granting summary judgment to Merrill Lynch because the WealthChoice Awards program does not fall within the protections of ERISA. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available https://sl1nk.com/hwek0bc. ARGUED: Mathew Paul Jasinski -- mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellant. Michael E. Kenneally -- michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John S. Edwards, Jr. -- jedwards@ajamie.com -- AJAMIE LLP, Houston, Texas; Robert A. Izard, Jr. -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP, West Hartford, Connecticut; Riley Breakell, MOTLEY RICE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellant. Samuel S. Shaulson, Miami, Florida, Matthew A. Russell, Chicago, Illinois, Andrew R. Hellman, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Ian H. Morrison -- imorrison@seyfarth.com -- Sam Schwartz-Fenwick, Jules A. Stevenson, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amicus Society for Human Resource Management. Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami, Charles A. Rothfeld, Daniel E. Jones, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the Center on Executive Compensation, the American Benefits Council, and the ERISA Industry Committee. Janet Galeria -- jgaleria@uschamber.com -- Mariel A. Brookins, UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amicus the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Ani Huang, CENTER ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, Arlington, Virginia, for Amicus the Center on Executive Compensation. Michael Delikat -- mdelikat@orrick.com -- Alyssa Barnard-Yanni, New York, New York, Robert M. Loeb, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. MN BEST BUY: Reference Prices "Misleading," Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that the "regular" or reference prices Best Buy routinely displays alongside lower purchase prices online to convince consumers that they are getting a larger discount are, in reality, a "permanent fictional anchor" in that the retailer never actually charges those prices for many items. The 20-page lawsuit contends that Best Buy, one of the country's largest retailers, has run a large-scale false advertising scheme characterized by a three-prong pricing display that shows the price to be paid by consumers, a higher reference "regular" price, and a savings figure purportedly showing the difference between the two. Per the complaint, these reference prices may refer either to the "regular" prices that Best Buy supposedly charges or to a "Comp. Value" price that the retailer says represents what competing advertisers charge. According to the complaint, Best Buy utilizes this pricing display model across product pages, promotional emails and other marketing materials to suggest to shoppers that they are receiving a "genuine bargain," and to induce purchases. In reality, however, Best Buy does not ever charge the stated reference prices for many of its products, and other retailers do not charge the stated comparable prices, meaning any advertised "savings" are not genuine, the case alleges. Furthermore, the suit argues that Best Buy's "Save $X.XX" figures are false and misleading because they are calculated from supposedly fictitious references and therefore fabricate any perceived discount. The suit claims that the purported discounts function as ongoing "artificial benchmarks," citing similar pricing across numerous product pages on both high-traffic promotional days and ordinary business days. Under California's False Advertising Law, retailers are prohibited from promoting reference or comparable prices unless those prices reflect the "prevailing market price" in the three months preceding the advertisement in the location where it is vended, the class action lawsuit states. However, by advertising large savings based on reference prices that allegedly never existed within the required 90-day window, Best Buy deceived consumers into making purchases based on "illusory" discounts, ostensibly in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the filing alleges. "This precise scheme—displaying a reference price, a 'Save' amount, and a sale price to create the illusion of a discount—is exactly what California courts have recognized as actionable false advertising," the suit relays. The case describes that the alleged misconduct is most blatantly seen in the retailer's promotion of its in-house brand, Insignia, which is sold primarily through Best Buy and Amazon.com pursuant to a distribution agreement controlled by Best Buy. Because Best Buy sets pricing as the proprietor of Insignia products, and given that no independent retailers sell them, any "regular" or "Comp. Value" reference prices it advertises are inherently nonsensical, the complaint claims. The filing also notes that identical reference prices appear on both Best Buy and Amazon.com listings, adding that Amazon functions as an additional distribution channel for Best Buy and does not dictate Insignia prices independently. The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased two Insignia televisions from BestBuy.com on February 8, 2025. Per the complaint, one television was advertised as offering $270 in savings from a regular price of $899.99, while the other advertised $150 in savings from a regular price of $599.99. The lawsuit argues that these reference prices were not the "prevailing market price" during the three months preceding the plaintiff's purchase. The complaint points to product listings showing that the same reference prices remained unchanged for more than 14 months, even as sale prices declined and advertised "savings" increased. "A price that does not move for fourteen months while actual transaction prices fall is not a 'prevailing market price' … it is a permanent fictional anchor," the filing stresses. The Best Buy class action lawsuit looks to represent all Californians who purchased one or more products from a Best Buy retail store in California or from BestBuy.com that was advertised with a "regular," "reg," "Save $X.XX," or "Comp. Value" reference price within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] MONKEY TAPS: Decker Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------ CAMERON DECKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. MONKEY TAPS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04058 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2026) is a class action challenging Monkey Taps' practice of secretly intercepting and transmitting the private communications and personal data of the users of its mobile applications to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. and TikTok Inc./ByteDance Ltd. (together, the "Tracking Technologies"), without the knowledge or consent of its users. The complaint relates that Monkey Taps publishes several applications on both Apple's iOS App Store and Google's Play Store. Unbeknownst to users, Monkey Taps embedded third-party software development kits ("SDKs") within the Apps -- specifically the Facebook SDK and the TikTok Business SDK -- that secretly intercept and transmit users' private communications, app usage data, and device identifiers to Meta and TikTok for advertising and analytics purposes. Defendant's secret interception and transmission of users' private communications and personal information to Meta and TikTok violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Florida Security of Communications Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and constitutes an invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, says the suit. The Plaintiff and California Subclass members seek all available remedies under California Penal Code and related provisions for Defendant's unlawful recording of confidential communications. Plaintiff Cameron Decker resides in Encino, California, which is in Los Angeles County. Defendant Monkey Taps, LLC is a mobile application developer headquartered in Miami, Florida that publishes applications for personal growth and development including tools for motivational quotes, daily affirmations, vocabulary building, mood tracking, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562)534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com MRO CORP: Faces Lamb Class Action Suit in E.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRO Corporation captioned as KIMBERLY G. LAMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRO CORPORATION; MEDICOPY SERVICES, INC.; and DEACONESS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02156-MRP (E.D. Pa., April 2, 2026). The case is assigned to District Judge Mia Roberts Perez. MRO Corporation develops a technology software. The Company offers healthcare data management solutions that delivers clinical data information and exchange reporting for providers to streamline processes through network infrastructure services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA 4445 LAKE Forest Drive Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street Ste 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alex C. Ussia, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1155 6th Ave New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 407-1787 Email: AUssia@Jenner.com - and - Lindsay C. Harrison, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Ave. NW Ste 754 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 639-6087 Email: amotgi@jenner.com -and- Shoba Pillay, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 923-2605 Email: spillay@jenner.com NAPLETON'S SCHAUMBURG: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Berman Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TODD BERMAN, Individually and on Behalf of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAPLETON'S SCHAUMBURG SUBARU, INC., an Illinois Corporation, and NAPLETON SCHAUMBURG MOTORS, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 1-25-1825 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division, affirms the trial court's order denying Napleton's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Berman purchased a pre-owned 2021 vehicle from Napleton Schaumburg Subaru. During negotiations, Napleton offered Berman a product, Xzilion, that purportedly protects a vehicle’s exterior from rust and corrosion and interior from stains, spills, and other wear and tear. Berman contends the parties agreed to a purchase price of $31,434, including the Xzilon treatment, but Napleton later added the $1,995 cost for Xzilion to the purchase price without his consent. He contends that Napleton's Retail Installment Contract has a cash price of $34,429, excluding taxes, which is $1,995 above the agreed price. Berman asserts he did not notice the additional fee because Napleton's salesperson pressured him to sign several documents. He also alleges Napleton never applied Xzilon to the vehicle. Two of the documents Berman signed in purchasing the vehicle and financing the transaction contained arbitration provisions. Berman's first amended class action complaint against Napleton Schaumburg Subaru, Inc. (Napleton Subaru) and its parent company, Napleton Schaumburg Motors, LLC (Napleton Group) (collectively "Napleton"), claims that Napleton charges consumers for Xzilon treatment without their consent. He alleges common law fraud (count I), consumer fraud (count II), breach of contract (count III), and civil conspiracy (count IV). Napleton moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting that valid and enforceable arbitration agreements exist and that Berman's claim falls within their scope. Berman responded that (i) Napleton Group is not a party to or an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreements between him and Napleton Subaru and cannot enforce the arbitration provisions, (ii) the RIC's arbitration provision exempts his claim because it falls within small claims court jurisdiction, (iii) the arbitration provisions are unenforceable due to conflicting, vague, and ambiguous terms, and (iv) the arbitration provisions are substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The trial court held that provisions in the two agreements on the proper forum for arbitration, who decides arbitrability, and the parties' responsibilities for fees could not be reconciled and denied the motion. Napleton argues the trial court erred because the parties agreed to arbitration and (i) conflicting provisions can be reconciled by reading the arbitration agreements together, (ii) the conflicts are not integral to the agreements, and (iii) the agreements delegated arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. The Appellate Court affirms. It explains that the provisions of the arbitration agreements, prepared by Napleton, contain irreconcilable conflicts regarding integral provisions on the proper forum, who decides arbitrability, and the parties' responsibilities for arbitration fees. Having affirmed the trial court's finding on enforceability, the Appellate Court need not address Berman's arguments concerning unconscionability. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available https://lnk.ua/81C8VFoiy Timothy D. Elliott -- telliott@rathjelaw.com -- Ronald D. Menna Jr. -- Menna@rathjelaw.com -- and Christopher M. Miller -- cmiller@rathjelaw.com -- of Rathje Woodward, LLC, of Wheaton, for appellants. Scott A. Morgan, of Morgan Law Firm, Ltd., John Sawin -- justice@sawinlawyers.com -- of Sawin Law Ltd., and Eugene Y. Turin -- eturin@mcgpc.com -- Joseph M. Dunklin -- jdunklin@mcgpc.com -- and William Kingston -- wkingston@mcgpc.com -- of McGuire Law, P.C., all of Chicago, for appellee. NEW YORK, NY: Leslie Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAKIRA LESLIE is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Shakira Leslie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-2305, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief for the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and New York Executive Law Article 49-B. On July 9, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On Aug. 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On Mar. 20, 2026, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's state law claim is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state forum. The appellate case is styled as Leslie v. City of New York, Case No. 26-950, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SHAKIRA LESLIE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip Louis Desgranges, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY EMPLOYMENT LAW Unit 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by: Steven Banks, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NORTHERN METAL: Unlawfully Terminates Employees, Cooper Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC COOPER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN METAL FAB. INC., JEFFREY JACOBSON, AND JOHN FELIX, Defendants, Case No. 26-cv-662 (E.D. Wis., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay Plaintiff's due and owing wages and benefits. Defendants own and operate offices within three blocks of each other, located at 500 Evergreen Street, Baldwin, WI 54002, and 510 Vandeberg Street, Baldwin, WI 54002 ("the Facility"). The Facility operates as NMF. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendants on or around March 30, 2026, and within 90 days of that date, and who were not provided the requisite 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by Wisconsin WARN Act. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the Wisconsin WARN Act, the complaint relates. The Defendants abruptly terminated, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, at least 58 employees, including Plaintiff, who represent at least 33% of active employees who reported to the Facility, notes the complaint. Prior to his termination, Plaintiff worked for approximately two to three weeks without pay. Additionally, Plaintiff has since learned that, despite the deduction from his paycheck, his work-sponsored health insurance plan was canceled without notice, effective February 28, 2026, nearly a month prior to the closing. To date, Plaintiff has not been refunded the premiums he paid toward the policy, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Eric Cooper was employed by Defendants as a full-time employee since 2003 up to his termination.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq. 136 E. Saint Paul Ave. Waukesha, WI 53189 Telephone: (414) 377-0515 E-mail: nathan@dela-law.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com OHIO: Summary Judgment in Thomas v. Bureau of Workers' Comp Flipped ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Lamar Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Bureau Of Workers' Compensation Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25AP-89 (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County, reversed the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting Defendant-Appellee, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation's motion for summary judgment. Thomas was injured in a car accident while working for his employer. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was allowed by BWC for cervical and lumbar sprain. Thomas also brought a negligence action against a third party for causing the accident that resulted in his injuries. Following the settlement of his third-party claim, BWC asserted a right of subrogation in the amount of $6,044.36 pursuant to R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931. BWC's claimed subrogation interest included $5,544.01 in medical bills and foreseeable expenses. Incorporated in the medical bills BWC sought to subrogate was a $120 fee for Dr. Gerald Yosowitz, the independent medical examiner retained by BWC to review Thomas' medical records and issue a report. Ultimately, BWC used Dr. Yosowitz's report to deny Thomas' request for additional allowances under his claim. Thomas paid BWC $6,044.36 from his third-party settlement to satisfy BWC's asserted subrogation interest. Thomas filed his original complaint in the Court of Claims arguing that BWC had no legal right to extract a subrogation payment against him that included Dr. Yosowitz's fee, and he asserted claims for equitable restitution and unjust enrichment in the amount of that fee. He further sought an order from the court to enjoin BWC from unlawful subrogation practices, and an order certifying this matter as a class action under Civ.R. 23. On June 28, 2021, the Court of Claims granted BWC's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Thomas could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Thomas appealed to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, with one assignment of error: "The trial court erroneously interpreted 'subrogation interest' [R.C. 4123.93(D)] to include administrative costs that neither the injured worker nor the statutory subrogee could recover from a liable third party." On May 12, 2022 we sustained Thomas' sole assignment of error, finding that Dr. Yosowitz's medical review was not conducted on behalf of Thomas and therefore was not included in BWC’s subrogation interest. The Court of Appeals, therefore, remanded the matter back to the Court of Claims. BWC appealed Court of Appeals's decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio. On October 3, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding that while it was lawful for BWC to seek a medical review before allowing Thomas' additional conditions, BWC was statutorily required to bear the cost pursuant to R.C. 4123.53(A). Therefore, the Supreme Court held that BWC's attempted expansion of subrogation was an unlawful attempt to avoid the financial responsibility of costs statutorily assigned to BWC. It remanded the matter to the Court of Claims. On remand, Thomas and BWC filed competing motions for summary judgment that the trial court considered jointly. BWC contended that it was entitled to summary judgment on Counts 1 through 4 of Thomas' complaint, while Thomas limited his motion for summary judgment to his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief found in Counts 1 and 4 of his complaint. The trial court determined that BWC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, holding that BWC acquired vested contractual rights as to the parties' obligations and rights under R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931, designed to avoid further litigation as to BWC's subrogation interest, when the parties executed the settlement agreement. Thomas appealed, asserting one assignment of error for our review: The Court of Claims erred, as a matter of law, by misconstruing the parties' limited release agreement and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, instead of Plaintiff-Appellant. The Court of Appeals agrees with Thomas that the release language in the settlement agreement does not prevent him from seeking reimbursement from BWC for Dr. Yosowitz's fee. As used in the settlement agreement, the "subrogation lien" and the parties' rights and obligations with respect to subrogation are defined by statute and do not include the costs for Dr. Yosowitz's medical review. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals can only conclude that this disputed fee is not encapsulated by the "subrogation lien" language in the release. Similarly, it cannot construe the language of the settlement agreement to release any rights Thomas may have had or as releasing BWC from its obligations under R.C. 4123.53(A), which is not referenced anywhere in the release language. Thomas' rights and BWC's obligations outlined in R.C. 4123.53(A) cannot be released as though they are the same as the rights and obligations in R.C. 4123.91 and 4123.931, to which the settlement agreement refers. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals sustains that the Appellant's sole assignment of error and reverses the judgement of the Court of Claims of Ohio. It remands the case back to that court for proceedings consistent with its decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision is available at https://l1nq.com/5ael0ov. On brief: Flowers & Grube, Paul W. Flowers, and Kendra N. Davitt, for appellant. Argued: Paul W. Flowers. On brief: Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC, Robert A. Hager -- rahager@bmdllc.com -- Justin M. Alaburda -- jmalaburda@bmdllc.com -- and Daniel J. Rudary -- djrudary@bmdllc.com; Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Miller -- tmiller@babstcalland.com -- for appellee. Argued: Daniel J. Rudary. OPEN DOOR: Removes Hahn Suit From Cal. Super. to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CHARLES HAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPEN DOOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS; TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Humboldt (Case No. CV2600214) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 16, 2026. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02267-RMI. The case is assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin. Open Door Family Medical Center, Inc. provides medical, dental, and mental health care and health education. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eva Yang, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 Email: eva.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. Joseph E. Simmons, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 855-8000 Facsimile: (214) 855-8200 Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01011 (W.D. Tex., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to adequately secure and protect the sensitive personal information of University of Phoenix's former and current students, applicants, faculty, staff, and vendor suppliers. The complaint relates that University of Phoenix collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are current or former students, student applicants, faculty, staff, or vendor suppliers at Defendant's institution. This personally identifiable information was collected as a condition of application, enrollment, employment, and the provision of services to University of Phoenix. As part of its regular business practice, University of Phoenix used Oracle's EBS for its business needs, which included the collection, transfer, and storage of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"). In August 2025, a hacker reportedly gained unauthorized remote access via the HTTP protocol to University of Phoenix's Oracle EBS data systems, exposing the full names, contact information, birth dates, Social Security Numbers, and bank account and routing numbers of over 3.5 million current and former as students, applicants, faculty, staff, and vendor suppliers. In November 2025, more than three months after the Data Breach occurred, University of Phoenix discovered that their systems had been compromised. On December 21, 2025, one month after discovering the Data Breach, and more than four months after the Data Breach occurred, University of Phoenix began notifying affected individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, that they were affected by the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete and actual injuries including: (i) Invasion of privacy; (ii) theft and unauthorized access to their PII; (iii) diminished value of their PII; (iv) uncompensated lost time and opportunity costs incurred while mitigating the consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of the benefit of their bargain; (vi) financial and opportunity costs associated with ongoing mitigation efforts; (vii) Nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and significantly heightened risk of future harm. Through this complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Karen Young is a resident and citizen of Bellflower, California. Defendant Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology company that offers database management services and products, including E-Business Suite ("EBS") which is used for financial management, logistics, human capital management, and other business needs. Defendant University of Phoenix is a private, for-profit university in Phoenix, Arizona that offers online degree programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-744-3000 Facsimile: 214-744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG , PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Sabita Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com PRADA USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Refusing Refund Returns ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Prada has a practice of wrongfully denying refund and/or exchange requests for personalized items that were not made to consumers' specifications. The 14-page lawsuit contends that Prada has wrongfully profited from consumer requests for personalized items made through its customization tool, given that the luxury fashion heavyweight regularly fails to deliver items that match customers' specifications. Per the suit, it is "not uncommon" for Prada to deliver customized items with, for example, a wrong or missing monogram, color or other design element. Despite the high price tag for its products, Prada systematically refuses returns for customized items, "even when the goods it sells are clearly defective or non-conforming," the class action lawsuit says. According to the complaint, the customization tool on Prada's website allows consumers to make a variety of alterations and customizations to fashion items, including color, monogramming, and other design features. However, the lawsuit alleges that it is "not uncommon" for the luxury retailer to ignore or otherwise overlook design specifications for products that consumers may have paid hundreds or even thousands of dollars and instead ship incorrect items. In such an instance, Prada does not allow consumers to return the non-conforming items or receive reimbursement, leaving many with "no recourse but to accept the goods as made," the filing claims. The complaint also highlights broader customer service issues with Prada, citing reports that describe the company's communication with consumers as "unhelpful, dismissive, and unresponsive to their concerns." As a result, consumers are deprived of their end of the bargain after paying more to customize already expensive items they did not receive as ordered, the complaint says, alleging that Prada's retention of funds paid for incorrectly customized items violates the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff, a Missouri resident, purchased a pair of Prada America's Cup lace-up sneakers with a customized red ankle collar lining and green laces, for nearly $1,150 in January 2026, the suit states. The complaint alleges, however, that the plaintiff received an "entirely different" pair of sneakers from those he customized, featuring grey laces and a grey lining. The plaintiff says he contacted Prada to report the issue, but the company did not offer any options to return or refund the purchase. The Prada customization class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who purchased customized merchandise from Prada's website, www.Prada.com, that did not conform to their specifications, but who were denied a replacement or refund. [GN] PSYCHPLUS MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dickerson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAIMEE DICKERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PSYCHPLUS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-3068 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about its current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data April 4, 2026, when the notorious cybercriminal group "The Gentlemen" infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems. The Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former patients' PII/PHI. The following types of PII/PHI were compromised: a. Name; b. Address; c. Date of Birth; d. Social Security Number; e. Phone number; f. Email Address; g. Clinical diagnosis; h. Medical Information; and i. Health Insurance Information. The Defendant has not begun notifying the class about the Data Breach. Thus, Defendant continues to keep the Class in the dark thereby depriving the Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner. In the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails, text messages and phone calls. Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of her PII/PHI which violates her rights to privacy, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Jaimee Dickerson is a current patient of Defendant and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant PsychPlus Medical Associates PLLC is a mental healthcare company that offers in-person and virtual care options with therapists and psychiatrists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camile Alvarez, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: calvarez@straussborrelli.com REGENCELL BIOSCIENCE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due June 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited ("Regencell" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RGC). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding Regencell's business, operations, and compliance policies, including allegations that: (i) Regencell was vulnerable and/or subject to market manipulation; (ii) the resulting volatility in the market for the Company's ordinary shares exposed Regencell's investors to significant financial risk; and (iii) all the foregoing subjected Regencell to a heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, as well as significant legal, monetary, and reputational harm. If you purchased Regencell shares between October 28, 2024 and October 31, 2025, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/regencell-bioscience-holdings/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is June 23, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. Holzer & Holzer, LLC (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Strauss Investigates Potential Mass Layoff ------------------------------------------------------------- Strauss Borrelli PLLC, a leading class action law firm, is investigating Republic National Distributing Company LLC ("RNDC") regarding its recent potential mass layoff in West Columbia, South Carolina. The WARN Act is a federal law that requires certain employers to notify their employees, in writing, at least 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff takes effect. As a result, we believe RNDC employees may be entitled to 60 days of severance pay and benefits. WHAT HAPPENED? On April 23, 2026, RNDC notified the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce of its decision to conduct a mass layoff at its facility in West Columbia, South Carolina. The federal law, known as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, requires covered employers to provide 60 days' prior written notice to employees, their representatives, and certain government parties in the event of a mass layoff or plant closing. We are investigating whether RNDC failed to provide at least 60 days' notice before laying off 451 employees and, therefore, violated the WARN Act. ABOUT THE WARN ACT: The WARN Act is a federal law passed in 1988 by Congress that requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide a 60-day notice of significant layoffs or plant closings. This notice gives workers and their families time to prepare for job loss, seek new employment, and pursue training or retraining opportunities. The WARN Act aims to reduce the impact of sudden job loss on workers and communities by ensuring they have sufficient time to transition. Generally, employees must receive a WARN Act notice if they are laid off or if their hours are cut by 50% or more in any six-month period because of a plant closing or mass layoff. It is possible that a temporary layoff may still violate the WARN Act if it ends up lasting longer than six months. Employers who do not follow the WARN Act rules, either by giving notice too late or providing unclear notices, may have to pay employees back pay and benefits for the time they were in violation. If you or someone you know was laid off from Republic National Distributing Company LLC ("RNDC") in West Columbia, South Carolina, we would like to speak with you about your rights and potential legal remedies. Please fill out the form below or contact us at 872.263.1100 or sam@straussborrelli.com ABOUT REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY: RNDC, headquartered in Grand Prairie, Texas, is a wholesale distributor of beverage alcohol products, including wine and spirits. It supplies products from domestic and international producers to retailers, restaurants, bars, and other licensed establishments. [GN] RETAIL MERCHANDISING: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Silva Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EFRAIN SILVA, individually and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETAIL MERCHANDISING SERVICES INCORPORATED, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02290 (D. Minn., April 20, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Defendant requires individuals to provide it with sensitive Private Information. Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On March 16, 2026, Defendant began sending individualized notice letters to victims informing them of a data breach. The complaint alleges that as a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. 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. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; and breach of implied contract, seeking actual and punitive damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiff was a retail merchandiser employee of Defendant. Defendant Retail Merchandising Services Incorporated is a merchandise service provider that operates across a variety of retail channels, and is a collective of retail experts with more than 150 years of combined experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com RIDGLAN FARMS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Animal Cruelty ------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Thompson, writing for 27 WKOW, reports that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Ridglan Farms and Dane County officials following a massive attempt to remove beagles from the Town of Blue Mounds property on April 18 that ended with several protesters being arrested. The lawsuit, filed Thursday, April 23, alleges the protesters were met with pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets. Civil rights and animal rights lawyer Susan Chana Lask represents plaintiffs Joanna Baird and Linda Gregersen in the case filed in the Western District of Wisconsin. The lawsuit names Ridglan Farms Inc., James A. Burns, Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett and Dane County Executive Melissa Agard as defendants. According to the complaint, the Dane County District Court and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) found that Ridglan Farms mistreated beagles and confined them to small cages. Veterinarian Sherstin Rosenberg found that some beagles recently taken from Ridglan in April had Giardia and their dew claws were removed, a procedure known to inflict unnecessary pain in dogs, the complaint says. The complaint alleges protesters were attacked by Ridglan's private security and the Dane County Sheriff's Office using chemical agents of pepper spray and tear gas along with rubber bullets to injure them. The complaint accuses Ridglan Farms of using a manure-filled trench to expose them to bacterial infections that are potentially life threatening. "Ridglan Farms' business depends on the suffering of innocent beagles bred and sold for painful experiments, including injecting them with chemical toxins," Lask said. "It is therefore no surprise that Ridglan did not hesitate to inflict the same pain and suffering on peaceful rescuers by responding with chemical agents, rubber bullets, and manure filled toxic trenches -- choosing violence, contamination, and terror to protect its profits rooted in suffering." Prior to the protesters' operation, Barrett warned that breaking into the property would not be tolerated. "We have to draw a decisive line between peacefully protesting and disagreeing and violently breaking into a facility, damaging property and stealing private property," Barrett said previously. The sheriff's office told 27 News, "At the advice of our Corporation Council, the Sheriff’s Office cannot comment on the pending litigation." Ridglan Farms is licensed as a research facility by the state DATCP and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2025, Ridglan Farms agreed to stop selling dogs purposely bred for biomedical research by July 1, 2026, as part of a court settlement to avoid criminal charges. Until July 1, Ridglan Farms is allowed to sell its remaining dogs and operate as a USDA Class A dog breeder. In response to the lawsuit, Ridglan Farms released the following statement: "On April 18, a violent mob descended upon Ridglan Farms to launch an assault on a federally licensed research facility. The attack was previously announced and heavily promoted by organizers on a dedicated webpage, via social media and through news outlets nationwide. "In response, law enforcement officers were dispatched to protect the property and those inside. As a result, several individuals have already been charged with serious crimes and many more may face significant legal consequences down the road. Law enforcement has a duty to protect and serve residents and businesses, just as a homeowner maintains the right to defend themselves, their family members and their property in response to a home invasion. To suggest otherwise defies logic and is contrary to law. Similarly, the claims made in this lawsuit are without merit." [GN] S & H: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says --------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. S & H ENTERPRISES, INC., LA MINUTA CAFETERIA LLC, MAMAXI LLC and INVERSIONES GODOY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22618-RAR (S.D. Fla., April 16, 2026) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant S & H ENTERPRISES, INC. owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, the common areas, walkways, paths of travel, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the business therein, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The subject Commercial Property is open to the public. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property on February 18, 2026, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the place and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, adds the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. ARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Primary E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: yabdalla@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Guerero Labor 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 labor class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On September 20, 2024, former employee Frank J. Leon Guerrero filed class action in the Alameda County Superior Court 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 Labor 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 labor class suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court. On May 16, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos filed class action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Lobatos class action complaint 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 May 16, 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 Ramirez Labor 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 labor class suit in the Alameda County Superior Court. On November 14, 2023, former employee Gerardo Ramirez filed two lawsuits against the Company in the Alameda County Superior Court. The first, a putative class action, alleges violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of business expenses. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company within the State of California at any time between March 1, 2021 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. 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. SES AI CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SES AI Corporation (NYSE: SES) between January 29, 2025 and March 4, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for SES AI Corporation investors under the federal securities laws. To join the SES AI Corporation class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56471 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SES AI overstated its business prospects by materially overstating the expected results that could be achieved by deals with companies that have limited or no operations; (2) SES AI created an appearance of revenue by purchasing services in exchange for purchases of Molecular Universe; (3) Contrary to its positive statements regarding growth prospects, SES AI was affected by material logistics constraints in the fourth quarter of 2025 which would materially affect Q4 2025 revenues; (4) the foregoing called into question SES AI's growth prospects for 2026, which were confirmed due to lower-than expected 2026 revenue guidance; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about SES AI's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 26, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56471 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260427491267/en/ CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com [GN] SKATE ONE: Faces Rodriguez Suit in Cal. Sup., Ventura Cty. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Skate One Corp. The case is captioned as JOSUE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKATE ONE CORP.; and VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., Case No. 2026CUOE064240 (Cal. Sup., Ventura Cty., April 2, 2026). Skate One Corp. provides sporting and athletic goods. The Company offers decks, wheels, skates, t-shirts, caps, stickers, trucks, parts, gifts, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Moon, Kane, Esq. SOUTH TEXAS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.075-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that South Texas Oncology and Hematology, a San Antonio, TX-based provider of leading-edge cancer treatment and other medical services, has settled a class action lawsuit stemming from a February 2024 cyberattack and data breach that involved unauthorized access to the personal information of 176,303 individuals, including the protected health information of 175,195 individuals. Suspicious network activity was identified on February 15, 2024, and the forensic investigation confirmed that an unauthorized individual accessed its network and potentially obtained employee and patient information. Data exposed in the incident included names, contact information, dates of birth, health information, and Social Security numbers. The affected individuals were notified about the incident in June 2024. The first class action lawsuit over the data breach was filed by plaintiff Doris Flores on June 24, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for Bexar County, Texas, 438th Judicial District. Several other lawsuits were subsequently filed, and since they made similar claims and had overlapping classes, the plaintiffs' counsel agreed to work cooperatively and litigate in a single action -- Flores v. South Texas Oncology and Hematology, PLLC. The consolidated lawsuit alleged that the defendant failed to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive data on its network, and that the data breach should have been prevented. South Texas Oncology and Hematology maintains that there was no wrongdoing, there is no liability, and denies all claims and contentions in the lawsuit. The defendant and the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement to avoid the costs and risk associated with a trial, with no admission of fault or liability. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for July 21, 2026. Under the terms of the settlement, South Texas Oncology and Hematology has agreed to pay $1,075,000 to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration and notification costs, service awards for the class representatives, and benefits for the class members. Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of up to $5,000 in documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach, or they may claim an alternative pro rata cash payment. The cash payments are estimated to be $100 per class member, but may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims received. In addition to one of those benefits, class members may also claim two years of free medical data monitoring services. Claims must be submitted by July 6, 2026, and individuals wishing to object to the settlement or exclude themselves must do so by June 22, 2026. [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Dismissal of Monahan Class Complaint Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINE MONAHAN, LILLIAN TAYLOR, AND RENEE IANNOTTI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-50559 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' class-action complaint. Southwest's fleet of planes includes a variety of aircraft from Boeing's 737 series, including the Boeing 737 MAX 8 (MAX). In March 2019, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all MAX flight operations after two MAX aircraft crashed within five months. The gist of the Plaintiffs' allegations is that the MAX aircraft utilized an unsafe avionics tool called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). If a MAX plane's nose tipped too far upward, the MCAS automatically—and without notice to the pilots—redirected the nose of the aircraft downward. According to the Plaintiffs, the MCAS "played a prominent role" in the two MAX airplane crashes. In this class-action lawsuit, the Plaintiffs sue Southwest on behalf of themselves and everyone who bought a Southwest plane ticket between August 29, 2017 and March 13, 2019. Two Southwest flights crashed during that period, but the Plaintiffs were not ticketed to fly on those flights. The Plaintiffs concede that they never flew on a MAX aircraft during that period. Instead, they assert a broader breach-of-contract claim based on alleged safety assurances that accompany all Southwest tickets. The Plaintiffs allege that Southwest breached those promises by allowing inadequately trained pilots to fly unsafe planes in violation of federal regulations. At bottom, their claim is that Southwest overcharged them for tickets because their flights were not as safe as Southwest promised. The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' class-action complaint, concluding that Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged an injury in fact as required for Article III standing. The Fifth Circuit agrees that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, albeit for a different reason than the district court's: Its decision in Earl v. Boeing Co., 53 F.4th 897 (5th Cir. 2022), forecloses the Plaintiffs' alleged theory of economic injury. In Earl, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs there lacked any cognizable injury in fact, and therefore lacked Article III standing. The Earl plaintiffs alleged that Southwest (and Boeing) defrauded them by concealing the MAX's safety defects. They argued that Southwest's fraud allowed it to charge prices that were significantly higher than the value of those tickets, which for many, if not most, passengers was zero. The idea was that if the public knew about the MAX's risks, demand would have dropped, and Southwest would have had to lower its ticket prices. Because Southwest fraudulently concealed the risks, Southwest could and did overcharge its customers. The Fifth Circuit court concluded that the plaintiffs' theory of injury rested on two unsupportable inferences. First, they had assumed that if the MAX's defects were known, then Southwest would have simply lowered its prices to offset the risk that passengers might die. But the more plausible inference was that Southwest would have offered no MAX flights until the defects were fixed. Second, the plaintiffs had assumed that the FAA, even with knowledge of the safety risks, would permit Southwest to keep using the MAX. But the Fifth Circuit found that inference to be "even more implausible than the first," especially because the FAA grounded the MAX after learning about the aircraft's safety issues. Because the Earl plaintiffs offered no plausible theory of economic harm, they suffered no injury in fact and thus had no Article III standing to assert their claims. While the Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court's overarching reason for concluding that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing—that they fail to allege any cognizable injury—it disagrees that Earl is materially distinguishable from this case. To the contrary, Earl forecloses the Plaintiffs' theory of economic injury based on the facts as alleged in this case. The claims—whether couched in terms of fraudulent concealment or breach of contract—rest on the idea that Southwest's conduct allowed the airline to overcharge its customers for plane tickets. Earl repudiated that proposition. Earl's injury-in-fact analysis maps neatly, if not perfectly, onto this case, and it dictates the same outcome: No plausible overcharges in Earl, no plausible overcharges here. Moreever, the problem with the Plaintiffs' case is that their claim and Earl share the same underlying facts and purported economic injury. If anything, their argument is harmed, not helped, by the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Wilson v. Centene Management Co., 168 F.4th 217 (5th Cir. 2026). In Wilson, it specifically distinguished the case from Earl because unlike in Earl, it was not an unsupportable inference to assume that the Wilson plaintiffs would have expected to pay less or that they would not have purchased the product at all. By distinguishing Earl on the facts, Wilson only confirms that Earl's injury-in-fact analysis answers the Article III standing inquiry in the present case before, as both cases are grounded on the same alleged injury. For these reasons, the district court was wrong to distinguish Earl from this case. The Plaintiffs request that, should their claim falter, the Fifth Circuit instructs the district court to allow them to amend their complaint to allege a class consisting of people who actually purchased tickets for MAX flights. The Court declines to do so as the Plaintiffs were not plausibly overcharged for their tickets. That injury-in-fact analysis applies regardless of the aircraft assigned to their flights. And because the Plaintiffs have no standing to assert their claim in the first place, they cannot solve the problem by amending their complaint to name similarly-situated travelers. For the reasons it explained, the Fifth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged an injury for purposes of Article III standing. And without standing, their class action cannot proceed. It therefore affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available https://sl1nk.com/a4t14oo TALENTMOVERS LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Schrader Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN SCHRADER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALENTMOVERS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00682-VMC-NHA (M.D. Fla., March 16, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. TalentMovers LLC is a recruitment agency specializing in recruiting language service professionals for international companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 900-4653 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Garrett Berg, Esq. GARRETT BERG LAW, P.A. 555 NE 15th St., PH A Miami, FL 33132 Email: garrett@gberglegal.com TARGET CORP: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Panelli Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEXANDER PANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-6640 (9th Cir.), Judge Ana de Alba of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's dismissal of Panelli's diversity putative consumer class action against Target. Target is a retailer that sells a variety of bed sheets of varying thread counts from numerous brands and manufacturers. In September 2023, he visited a Target in southern California and made a cash purchase of a single set of queen-sized Threshold Signature sheets. The sheets were labeled as an "800 Thread Count Sheet Set" made of "100% cotton sateen." Panelli alleges that because of these representations, he purchased the sheet set for a higher price than other bedsheets without the same purported qualities because he understood the higher price to correlate to the higher thread count. After purchasing the bed sheet set, Panelli claims that while he thought he was getting high-thread count bedding, the reality was considerably rougher. He filed a class action complaint against Target in April 2024 in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging that Target misrepresented the thread counts of its sheets and that the actual count was much lower. Following Target's removal of the case to federal court, Panelli filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). More specifically, he alleged that Target sells various bed sheets advertised as having a thread count of 600 or more, and that bed sheets with high thread count are more desirable and worth an extra cost because high thread counts have come to mean high quality sheets, whether they be softer or supple or durable. He further claimed that independent testing showed the sheets he purchased had a thread count of only 288—not 800, as claimed on the sheet's label. In August 2024, Target filed a motion to dismiss all of Panelli's claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim, and to strike certain class action allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f). It argued that Panelli (1) failed to adequately allege facts to support his claim that the product he purchased does not have an 800 thread count as labeled; (2) lacked standing to challenge the products he did not purchase; (3) failed to sufficiently plead the inadequacy of legal remedies under the CLRA and equitable remedies portion of the CLRA; (4) improperly demanded punitive damages under the CLRA; and (5) failed to exclude putative class members subject to an arbitration agreement and class action waiver. In its motion, Target also requested the district court deny leave to amend in light of Panelli's previous opportunity to amend and because of his alleged undue delay in addressing the perceived deficiencies in his FAC. Panelli opposed Target's motion, arguing that he sufficiently described the expert testing, methodology, and findings underlying his allegations of falsity. In October 2024, the district court granted Target's motion to dismiss, dismissing all of Panelli's claims with prejudice. The district court concluded that Target's representations are not misleading to a reasonable consumer as a matter of law under this Court's precedent in Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F.4th 874, 884 (9th Cir. 2021), where the Ninth Circuit held that dismissal was warranted in that case because a reasonable consumer would be dissuaded by contextual information from reaching an implausible interpretation of the claims on the front label of the challenged product. The district court also denied Panelli leave to amend, reasoning it was impossible for him to amend his complaint without contradicting his initial allegation that it is physically impossible for 100% cotton fabric to have a thread count of 600 or more. Because the district court dismissed all of Panelli's claims as a matter of law without leave to amend, it did not reach Target's other arguments. Panelli timely filed his notice of appeal. He contends that the district court erroneously interpreted Moore as ruling that any time a plaintiff alleges that a company's advertising claim is factually impossible, the allegations of deception are, categorically, implausible under the reasonable consumer standard. Judge de Alba holds that the district court misinterpreted Moore and erred in dismissing Panelli's claims on that basis. She finds the district court understood Moore as holding that allegations of consumer deception based on factually impossible claims fail as a matter of law because no consumer of any level of sophistication would reasonably interpret the label in the manner proposed by the plaintiff. This interpretation is incorrect and overlooks analytical steps required under Moore. The claims on the labels of the bed sheets Target sold are not ambiguous, and therefore, the facts of the case do not trigger the Moore framework. Judge Alba also holds that Panelli has plausibly alleged falsity under California's consumer protection laws. Panelli's allegation that it is physically impossible to achieve an 800 thread count on cotton material, alone, does not require the complaint's dismissal. As the Court previously explained, a reasonable consumer may still be deceived by a physically impossible claim. Thus, the district court erred in dismissing Panelli's complaint on this basis. For these reasons, Judge de Alba concludes that the district court erroneously dismissed the case, and accordingly reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with her Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available https://l1nq.com/2kdyueo. Christen Chapman (argued) -- cchapman@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Glenn A. Danas, Brent A. Robinson, Ashley M. Boulton, and Lauren Anderson, Clarkson Law Firm PC, Malibu, California; Craig W. Straub -- craig@crosnerlegal.com -- Michael Houchin -- mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com -- and Zachary Crosner, Crosner Legal PC, Beverly Hills, California; Lawrence J. Salisbury -- lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com -- Salisbury Legal Corp, San Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Grant Ankrom (argued), Dentons US LLP, Clayton, Missouri; Michael J. Duvall -- michael.duvall@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. Rebecca A. Morse and Hunter Landerholm, Deputy Attorneys General; Michele Van Gelderen, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Nicklas A. Akers, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta, California Attorney General; Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; for Amicus Curiae State of California. THC-ORANGE COUNTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jefferson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- YIESHA JEFFERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 26STCV10770 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Jefferson was employed by the Defendants as a Phlebotomist. THC - Orange County, Inc. provides healthcare services. The Company offers medical and surgical care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 Email: raffi@tapanianlaw.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Summary Judgment in Gosse Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHELSEY GOSSE, on her behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons; CHRISTOPHER DETTORE; LORI A. DETTORE, CHELSEY GOSSE, on her behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Appellant, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC.; US BANK NA; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3; RATCHFORD LAW GROUP PC; PORTNOY SCHNECK LLC; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-4; GSS DATA SERVICES LLC, Case No. 25-1474 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Gosse brought a putative class action challenging the Defendants' efforts to collect on her defaulted student loan. The Plaintiff took out a student loan in 2007. The issuing bank sold her loan to Defendant National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-03 (NCSLT). Gosse defaulted on the loan. Defendant NCSLT sued her in Pennsylvania state court to collect. The state court dismissed the case without prejudice. Following the Pennsylvania dismissal, the Plaintiff filed a federal putative class action against Defendant NCSLT, NCSLT's law firm in the debt-collection suit, and related entities. She alleged that the Defendants had engaged in unlawful debt-collection practices. She brought claims for civil conspiracy and violations of Pennsylvania's Dragonetti Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The District Court granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff timely appealed. The focus of this appeal is the Dragonetti Act. The Plaintiff bore a "heavy burden" to establish, among other things, that the underlying debt-collection suit was initiated "in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause." The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that the Plaintiff failed to do so. It opined the Plaintiff's appellate arguments are hyper-technical and ultimately unpersuasive. She claimed that separate litigation has revealed systemic problems with the Defendants' debt-collection practices, but cited no record evidence linking any of those issues directly to her loan. Topical overlap, as opposed to proof, is not enough. The Plaintiff also questioned the authenticity of the evidence indicating that Defendant NCSLT owned her loan when it commenced the debt-collection suit. The Third Circuit said those arguments are little more than speculation and conjecture. Finally, the Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant NCSLT abandoned the debt collection suit is in significant tension with the record. But, in any event, the abandonment theory is not enough for her to establish that the suit was initiated negligently or without probable cause under the Dragonetti Act. The Plaintiff presented no independent arguments relating to her claims for civil conspiracy and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Third Circuit saw no reason to disturb the District Court's rulings on those claims. Accordingly, the order is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/crhcjju TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Settles Suit Over Personal Injury Protection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Travelers Indemnity Company agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims it wrongfully reduced personal injury protection (PIP) coverage limits by deducting copayments and deductibles from the policy limits. The Travelers settlement benefits individuals who were paid PIP benefits by Travelers under a New Jersey automobile insurance policy where the final payment was made between April 14, 2017, and April 1, 2023, and who were paid within $3,000 of their PIP policy limit but less than the full PIP policy limit. According to a class action lawsuit, Travelers violated New Jersey law by reducing PIP coverage limits for copayments and deductibles. Policyholders claim that they were not compensated for the full value of their Travelers Personal Injury Protection benefits due to these reductions. Travelers is an insurance company that offers auto, home, business and other types of insurance. The company offers insurance policies in all 50 states. Travelers has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Travelers class action settlement, all class members will receive an automatic payment of $70. Class members who submit a valid claim form can receive an additional payment of up to 80% of the difference between their PIP policy limit and the amount they were paid in PIP benefits, minus the $70 payment. For example, if a class member had a $15,000 Travelers Personal Injury Protection policy limit but was only paid $14,000 in benefits, they could receive up to $800 in settlement benefits (80% of the $1,000 difference, less the $70 automatic payment). To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 16, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals who were paid PIP benefits by Travelers under a New Jersey automobile insurance policy where the final payment was made between April 14, 2017, and April 1, 2023, and who were paid within $3,000 of their PIP policy limit but less than the full PIP policy limit. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Travelers policy number, if known, and the claim number associated with the Travelers claim for which they are seeking benefits NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/16/2026 Case Name Thompson, et al. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., et al., Case No. MID-L-001039-21, in the New Jersey Superior Court for Middlesex County Settlement Website NJPIPSettlement.com Claims Administrator Thompson, Thorson and Lucci v. Travelers c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 5770 Portland, OR 97228-5770 info@NJPIPSettlement.com (877) 315-6874 Class Counsel James A. Barry DENITTIS OSEFCHEN & PRINCE P.C. Michael A. Galpern JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KHAN WICKSTROM & SININS P.C. James C. Shah MILLER SHAH LLP Defense Counsel Steven M. Levy DENTONS US LLP [GN] TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Sawyer Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SAWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC; and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02698-MCA-AME (D.N.J., April 16, 2026) is an action against the Defendant alleging violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC is a healthcare technology company that specializes in revenue cycle management software and services for healthcare providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel B. Strauss, Esq. Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com atadler@kaplanfox.com - and - William J. Pinilis, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 160 Morris Street Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 656-0222 Email: wpinilis@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Sophia V. Pintar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com spintar@kaplanfox.com USA: Writ of Mandamus Issued to Terminate Contempt Proceedings -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL., Petitioners, Case No. 25-5452 (D.C. App.), the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, grants the government's petition for a writ of mandamus to confine the district court to its lawful jurisdiction and terminate these criminal contempt proceedings. On March 14, 2025, the President invoked his authority under the Alien Enemies Act and proclaimed that the Venezuelan terrorist organization Tren de Aragua had perpetrated an invasion or predatory incursion. He ordered that they be detained and removed from the United States. In the early hours of the next day, March 15, suspected Tren de Aragua members detained in Raymondville, Texas, were transported to a nearby airport in preparation for their removal from the United States. The counsel for five of the detainees had learned of the planned removals and filed suit seeking emergency relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint named the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other Executive Branch officials and agencies as defendants. The Plaintiffs brought, inter alia, Administrative Procedure Act and federal habeas corpus claims and sought to represent a class of similarly situated detainees. They also requested a temporary restraining order enjoining their removal from the United States and, in the event they had been removed but remained in United States custody, ordering the government to return them to the United States. After the planes took off and left the country, the district court ordered the government not to remove the Plaintiffs from the United States. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order because it was premised on a legal error and the Plaintiffs' suit was brought in the wrong court. Nonetheless, the district court threatened to hold government officials in criminal contempt unless they complied with the now-vacated order by, for instance, taking back custody of the Plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus vacating the court's first contempt order. Undeterred, the district court is proceeding with criminal contempt for the government's decision to transfer the Plaintiffs to the custody of El Salvador. To cooperate, the government identified then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer decision. The district court previously said this was the only information it required to make a referral for prosecution. But it has now expanded its inquest and ordered hearings to extract more information from government counsel about exactly what happened last March. The government again petitions for a writ of mandamus terminating the contempt proceedings. The Court of Appeals opines that the widening gyre of the district court's investigation again calls for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to halt the judicial "impairment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties." The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy. These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion, as the district court's order said nothing about transferring custody of the Plaintiffs and therefore lacks the clarity to support criminal contempt based on the transfer of custody. Moreover, the government has already provided the name of the responsible official, so further judicial investigation is unnecessary and therefore improper. In these circumstances, mandamus is appropriate to prevent the district court from assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction that encroaches on the autonomy of the Executive Branch. For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals issues the writ of mandamus to confine the district court to its lawful jurisdiction and terminate these criminal contempt proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/au790bc Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Tiberius T. Davis, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, were on the petition for writ of mandamus and the reply in support of the petition for writ of mandamus. Evelyn Danforth-Scott, My Khanh Ngo, Cody Wofsy, Lee Gelernt, Daniel Galindo, Ashley Gorski, Patrick Toomey, Omar Jadwat, Hina Shamsi, Arthur B. Spitzer, Scott Michelman, Aditi Shah, and Kathryn Huddleston were on the opposition to the petition for writ of mandamus. Michael Tan entered an appearance. VACO LLC: Court Partly OKs Bid for Notice in "Montenegro" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Gabriel D. Montenegro, Plaintiff, v. Vaco LLC, Defendant, No. 3:23-cv-01265 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Eli Richardson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for court-authorized notice in this putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff filed this collective action on December 1, 2023, alleging that Defendant misclassified him and other recruiters as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. Plaintiff moved for court-authorized notice to all current and former recruiters who worked for Defendant during the three-year period from December 1, 2020 to December 1, 2023, defining recruiters as employees holding the job titles of Associate, Senior Associate, Associate Director, Director, Senior Director, or Managing Director. Defendant is a limited liability company headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee, with roughly 50 operating office locations across the United States and approximately 200 to 250 recruiters at any given time. Plaintiff worked as a Senior Associate from approximately December 5, 2022 to June 16, 2023, earning a base salary of $60,000 and was eligible to earn commissions. The Court applied the strong likelihood standard established in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), which requires plaintiffs to show a strong likelihood that proposed collective members are similarly situated to the named plaintiff. The Court considered three non-exhaustive factors: the factual and employment settings of the named plaintiff and collective members; the different defenses to which they may be subject on an individual basis; and the degree of fairness and procedural impact of the action. The Court found that Plaintiff mustered sufficient evidence that all recruiters were uniformly classified as exempt under the FLSA, establishing claims unified by a common theory of statutory violation. The record further indicated that recruiters, regardless of job title or office location, shared common duties and responsibilities, were paid on a salary basis with a commission schedule, and were subject to common policies, practices, and training. Defendant conceded, for purposes of its response, that all recruiters had similar job duties. Accordingly, the Court found a strong likelihood that Plaintiff and collective members are similarly situated and granted Plaintiff's request for court-authorized notice. The Court denied Plaintiff's request to appoint his counsel as counsel for the FLSA collective. The Sixth Circuit has made clear that an FLSA collective action is not representative, and opt-in plaintiffs have the right to select counsel of their own choosing without filing a separate lawsuit. The Court also denied authorization to send notice in the form proposed. The Proposed Notice and Proposed Text Message contained several deficiencies, including references to Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, a provision requiring opt-in plaintiffs to designate Plaintiff's counsel as their agents, and language suggesting opt-ins would be bound by Plaintiff's decisions. The Court ordered Plaintiff to revise the Proposed Notice to: (1) remove all references to Plaintiff's counsel serving as class counsel or counsel for the FLSA collective; (2) make clear that opt-in plaintiffs may retain their own counsel without filing a separate lawsuit; (3) include a consent form permitting opt-in plaintiffs to join without designating Plaintiff's counsel; and (4) remove any provision requiring opt-in plaintiffs to be bound by Plaintiff's decisions. The Court further modified the Proposed Text Message, replacing language stating that overtime wages are owed to collective members with the qualification that wages may be owed, and ordered removal of language suggesting the Court had appointed Plaintiff's counsel as agent for opt-in plaintiffs. The Court reserved for future determination the issues of equitable tolling and whether a two- or three-year limitations period applies. A copy of of the MEMORANDUM OPINION of the Court is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=901XWH from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Gabriel D. Montenegro is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com VGW HOLDINGS: Knapp Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- ERIC A. KNAPP is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Eric A. Knapp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VGW Holdings Limited, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00147, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The suit, which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of Florida statutory and tort law by operating and marketing internet gambling websites within the State of Florida and Seminole County. On June 9, 2025, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and Worldpay, LLC ("Moving Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Colm F. Connolly granted on Mar. 12, 2026. In sum, Knapp is entitled to relief only for claims under Delaware law, so Moving Defendants are entitled to dismissal of the Florida statutory claims. And because Knapp has not sufficiently pled Moving Defendants' knowledge of VGW's alleged fraud, he is also not entitled to relief on his civil conspiracy claim. The appellate case is styled as Eric Knapp v. VGW Holdings Limited, et al., Case No. 26-1844, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC A. KNAPP, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esq. HEIMAN GOUGE & KAUFMAN 800 King Street, Suite 303 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-1800 Defendants-Appellees VGW HOLDINGS LTD., et al. are represented by: Virginia Lynch, Esq. Andrew S. Russell, Esq. SHAW KELLER 1105 N. Market Street I.M. Pei Building, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 298-0708 VIRGIN GALACTIC: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $8.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP announce that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded shares of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE) and/or Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. (NYSE: IPOA) common stock: SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded shares of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic") and/or Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. common stock from July 10, 2019, through August 4, 2022, inclusive (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminary certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $8,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on July 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Taryn A. Merkl at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Courtroom 13D South, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.VirginGalacticSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Virgin Galactic Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, Telephone: (866) 274-4004. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator either electronically or postmarked no later than August 13, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is received no later than June 18, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June 9, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Virgin Galactic, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Virgin Galactic Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (866) 274-4004 Email: info@strategicclaims.net www.VirginGalacticSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Jonathan Horne, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: info@rosenlegal.com or Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Email: settlements@glancylaw.com By Order of the Court [GN] WAGNER SPRAY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Steamers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Errol Cooper is suing Wagner Spray Tech Corp. Why: Cooper claims the company knowingly sold Wagner steamers that were defective and caused burns. Where: The Wagner class action was filed in Minnesota federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Wagner, a leading name in the DIY product market, of selling steamers with a defect that can result in burn injuries and failing to implement adequate recall measures. Plaintiff Errol Cooper filed the Wagner class action complaint against Wagner Spray Tech Corp. on April 6 in Minnesota federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Wagner allegedly sold about 700,000 of the defective steamers between November 2018 and March 2026 and announced the recall only recently, despite knowing about the issue for years. The lawsuit claims the Wagner steamers have a defect that causes the attached hose to get excessively hot and the nozzle to expel hot water, resulting in burn injuries to consumers. Wagner's recall was too late and inadequate, lawsuit says The Wagner class action lawsuit alleges the defect is present in all three models of the Wagner 900 Series power steamers that were recalled: the 905e Auto Steamer, 915e On-Demand Power Steamer and 925e Steam Machine Elite Steamer. Cooper claims that Wagner received at least 156 reports of incidents involving the defect, including more than 50 burn injuries to consumers' arms, hands, feet and face, many of which resulted in first- or second-degree burns. Despite this, the company allegedly continued to sell the steamers without issuing any warning or making design changes until the recall was announced on March 19, 2026. The class action lawsuit further alleges that Wagner's recall is inadequate because it only offers a repair kit consisting of a hose sleeve, nozzle cover and funnel, which does not eliminate the defect but merely conceals it. The repair kit also requires consumers to install the components themselves, without access to a qualified technician, which may lead to additional injuries, the lawsuit says. The class action lawsuit claims that Wagner's recall fails to provide any monetary relief to consumers who purchased the defective steamers and that the company's assertion that the repair kit is a simple, effective fix is misleading. Cooper is looking to represent anyone in the United States who bought a recalled Wagner steamer. He is suing for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment and for violations of state and federal consumer protection laws and seeking certification of the Wagner class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Currently, a consumer is seeking $3.75 million in damages from SharkNinja after allegedly losing vision in one eye after a blender exploded and injured her. The plaintiff is represented by Melissa S. Weiner and Ryan T. Gott of Pearson Warshaw LLP; Rachel Soffin of Pearson Warshaw LLP; Tyler Ewigleben of Jennings & Earley PLLC; and Ben Travis of Ben Travis Law APC. The Wagner class action lawsuit is Cooper v. Wagner Spray Tech Corp., Case No. 0:26-cv-02160, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. [GN] WATKINS SERVICE: $22.4K in Damages Against Chagas Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, 200 River Landing Drive Phase I Condominium Association, Inc., and Steven Garcia and Janis Zomber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. Watkins Service, Inc., First Exteriors, LLC, Getulio Perela Chagas, FBM Construction, LLC d/b/a Fernando Monteiro, and John Doe Subcontractors or Material Suppliers 12-50, Defendants, Of whom Getulio Perela Chagas is the Appellant, Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-168, Appellate Case No. 2023-001832 (S.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court's order awarding the Respondents $22,479,523 in damages against Chagas. In this class action construction defect case, Chagas appeals the circuit court's order awarding Respondents River Landing and Garcia and Zomber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, $22,479,523 in damages against Chagas. Chagas argued the damages award should be set aside as harsh and unwarranted because it was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Respondents $22,479,523 in damages because Chagas was not entitled to an apportionment of damages and the award amount was supported by evidence. Specifically, Chagas admitted he was negligent, grossly negligent, and jointly and severally liable for the damages alleged in the second amended complaint. Moreover, in his final brief of appellant, Chagas does not challenge the circuit court's findings in its order of judgment that his negligence and gross negligence contributed to the indivisible damages and that he was jointly and severally liable. As to the damages award, the Court of Appeals concluded that Chagas was not entitled to apportionment because he admitted the Respondents' allegations of gross negligence by way of default and under section 15-38-15(F) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2025), apportionment is not available to a defendant who is determined to be grossly negligent. As to the amount of damages, the Court of Appeals concluded that evidence supported the circuit court's $22,479,523 damages award. For these reasons, the circuit court's order awarding the Respondents $22,479,523 in damages against Chagas is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/5esjb6l Christopher Clinton Mingledorff -- chris@mlegalteam.com -- of Mingledorff Law Group, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Christopher Paul Deters -- cdeters@romeodeters.com -- of Romeo Deters, LLC, and Jesse A. Kirchner and Michael A. Timbes, both of Thurmond Kirchner & Timbes, P.A., all of Charleston, for Respondents. ********* 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 ***