260525.mbx

260525.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 25, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 103 Headlines 374WATER INC: Faces Stockholder Class Action in Delaware 3M COMPANY: Grove Hill Town Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Talladega Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Tinker Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Tippins Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Tuskegee Utilities Board Suit Transferred to D.S.C. 3M COMPANY: Weaver Water System Suit Transferred to D.S.C. 3M COMPANY: West Escambia Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 46 LABS LLC: Velazquez Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma 7-ELEVEN INC: Fuchs Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA 84 LUMBER: Class Cert. Discovery in Runciman Extended to July 10 ACACIA NETWORK: FLSA Settlement in Neor Suit Gets Court Nod ACTINIUM PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ADEBCO INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Smith" FLSA Suit ADOBE INC: Bid for Class Certification in Foret Due Jan. 14, 2027 ADOBE INC: Faces Dorcus Suit Over Unlawful Voiceprint Collection AIRE ANCIENT: Faces Klein Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ALCON LABORATORIES: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California ALPHABET INC: Collects Voiceprints Without Notice, Marin Says ALSTON & BIRD: Faces Emery Class Action Suit Over Ponzi Scheme ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Herman Suit Over Subscribe & Save Program AMAZON.COM INC: Unlawfully Collects Voiceprints, Rogers Says AMERICAN LENDING: Baldwin Files Suit in C.D. California AMERICAN LENDING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Alleges AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Parillo Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ARBOR REALTY: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Class Action ASTRO GALLERY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in SMIP Suit ATLANTA BREAKFAST: Free Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages AUTHID INC: Faces Perez BIPA Class Action AUTO PERFECTION: Court OKs Enforcement of $112K Deal in "Hernandez" AVANTI PIZZA: Faces Mashkulli Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. AXT INC: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit BAREFOOT RESORT: $1M Deal in "Dillon" Has Prelim OK BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Order in Drake Suit Affirmed BELK INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Magana Due Feb. 16, 2027 BERKELEY RESEARCH: Fails to Secure Personal, Info, Dulisse Says BIMBO BAKERIES: Haider Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA BIOAGE LABS: Appeal Filed After Dismissal of Securities Suit BLACKSTONE INC: Faces Class Action , Derivative Suits BLINDS CHALET: Cole Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website BLUE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Adams Alleges BRIGHTON FLAMING: Galicia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA BUTCHERBOX OPCO: Stephens Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. CAL-MAINE FOODS: DenWest Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CAL-MAINE FOODS: LPJJ LLC Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: Amin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Gherna Seeks to Recover Penalties Under PAGA CAMILLE ROSE LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAPITOL FEDERAL: State Court Affirms Dismissal of Harding Suit CASA TUA: Freddi Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA CBRE INC: Gertsen Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA CENTRAL NATIONAL GOTTESMAN: Romero Files Suit in E.D. New York CHAMPION PETFOODS: Eilender Sues Over Grain Free Products False Ads CHAMPIONX CORP: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Daytona Beach Says CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Contreras Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CITY OUTREACH: Cunningham Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA CLARRIXXA'S CLEANING: Montelongo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CODE 3: Jerry Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA COMPASS INC: Multiple Antitrust Class Actions Filed COREWEAVE INC: Class Action, Derivative Shareholder Suits Filed CORMEDIX INC: Faces Class, Derivative Suits COTY DTC: Loses Bid to Keep "Crooks" Email Suit in Federal Court COTY INC: CHEN Securities Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop CREATORS GUILD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Alleges CVS PHARMACY: Intercepts Users' Confidential Info, Brooks Alleges D.D.M. MEDICAL: Kwaak Sues Over Dispatchers' Unpaid Wages in N.Y. DAVEK ACCESSORIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Says DEERE & CO: Restricts Agriculture Equipment Repairs, Suit Says DESTINATION PET LLC: Alzate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DJGN LEXINGTON: $750K Settlement in "Landis" Has Prelim OK DRAGONFLY ENERGY: Faces Consumer Class Actions, Derivative Suits DRG HOSPITALITY: Caywood Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage DULUTH HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind E-TELECOM LLC: Underpays Company Employees, Morris Alleges EARGO HEARING: Faces Esperanza Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails EL AL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Ticket Refund Installments EMERALD SOCAL LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ENCORE ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action ENGAGE MEDIA GROUP: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Fragranced Consumer Products ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit over Data Privacy Allegations EXPEDIA GROUP: Class in Israeli Putative Suit Partially Certified EYEMART EXPRESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Montgomery Says FENDER MUSICAL: Gallardo Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA FISERV INC: Lombard Suit Transferred to S.D. New York FLORIDA PREPAID: Lavina Suit Remanded for Dismissal w/out Prejudice FLUOR CORP: Multiple Derivative Actions Filed FLY FISH: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website FOOD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Enguerra Suit Due July 21 FOODSCIENCE LLC: Ramirez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FORD MOTOR: Class Certification Bid in Miller Suit Due June 22 FORTINET INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suits FRANCHISE GROWTH: Guthrie Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas FREEPORT, NY: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to June 15 FRISKA LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Crabtree Files Suit in S.D. California GAP INC: Unlawfully Collects Tariff Related Fees, Debenedictis Says GOOD SPORTSMAN: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website GRINDR INC: Proposed Settlement for Court OK GRINNELL COLLEGE: Intercepts Website Users' Data, Hanfling Says GRUBHUB INC: Judge OKs 1-Hour Filing Extension in "Bensimon" H.B.D.DIST INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says HASPEL LLC: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website HEAT CARIBBEAN: Ramales-Salas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HIGHRIDGE MEDICAL: Miller Seeks Sales Support Reps' Unpaid Wages HOME ELEGANCE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Ramirez Says HV GLOBAL: Ramsey FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. IGLOO PRODUCTS: Court Won't Reverse "Harms" Class Standing Ruling IMMUTEP LIMITED: Dhaenens Sued Over Drop in Share Price INSTRUCTURE INC: Faces Mockert Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McFadden Says INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jackson Says JANUS HENDERSON: Settlement Reached in Schissler ERISA Suit JOINT CORP: Faces Several Class Actions in California KALSHI INC: Roberts Sues to Recover Losses from Illegal Sports Bets KATIE LOXTON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Says KESTREL GROUP: Discovery in Shareholder Suit Ongoing KINGSFORD PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Says KODIAK LABOR: Watson Files Suit Over FCRA Breach KROGER CO: Cherepennikova FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio LAMB WESTON: Court Tosses Claims in Securities Suit LAST BRAND INC: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. California LEMONADE INC: Song Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. LIFELINE PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brown Says LOBYS HOGS: Faces Hunter Employment Suit Over Age Discrimination LOVISA AMERICA: Parties Seek OK of Bid for Distribution Notice LPC SURVIVAL: Gaines Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline MARCO FINE ARTS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARYLAND: Bangura Seeks to Seal Class Cert Memorandum MATEOS REAL ESTATE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property MAZDA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Heated Seat Feature MCKESSON CORP: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Suits META PLATFORMS: Elsevier Sues Over Copyright Violations META PLATFORMS: Marin Sues Over Illegal Collection of Voiceprints MIAMI, FL: Lemus-Olyva Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed MICROSOFT CORP: Illegally Collects Voiceprints, Flowers Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: Whitcomb Suit Transferred to N.D. California MPC INC: Hall Class Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA MR. CONSTRUCTION: Luz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages NANO NUCLEAR: Dismissal of Class, Derivative Suits Under Appeal NEINSTEIN PLASTIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grossmann Says NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit over Alopecia Meds NEW FORTRESS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit NEW WAY: Magurean Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Seeks to Certify Class NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 22 NEW YORK: De Souza Action Referred to Magistrate Judge NEXSTAR MEDIA: MDL Antitrust Suit, Derivative Action Filed NIKE INC: Faces Dunn Class Action Suit Over Illegal IEEPA Tariffs NITV LLC: Hogan Files Suit in Ark. Cir. Ct. NOCAL VENTURES LLC: Tilghman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NUSCALE POWER: Robbins Geller Rudman Appointed as Lead Counsel ONE GROUP: Faces Yuwono Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. OURBUS INC: Ross-Pilkington Files Suit in S.D. New York OUTDOOR SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cesario Says PACAS INC: Faces Bernstein Suit Over Misleading Marketing Emails PACIFIC MARKET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Scherzi Due Feb. 5, 2027 PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal PF CALI: STRANDHOLT Seeks Expedited Class Certification Ruling PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PIPESTONE HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Neitzel Says PIVOT HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Gage Says PMGC HOLDINGS: Settles Wage and Hour Class Suit POMDOCTOR LTD: Faces Securities Class Action over SEC Disclosures PRIMROSE RETIREMENT: Burks Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Underpays K-9 Handlers, Passee Says PROCTER & GAMBLE: Barton Seeks Class Certification PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Data Breach Suits Consolidated PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Class Cert Hearing Continued PUTNAM COUNTY: Underpays Hospital Hourly Workers, Green Alleges RANCH AND HOME: Schwartz Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime RC SUPERSTORE: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Website's Access Barriers REDDIT INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Class Action Deadlines REEL PRODUCTS: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website RENTGROW INC: "Davis" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court RENTOKIL NORTH: Forslin Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA REPUBLIC SERVICES: Gause Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA RESTAURANT INVESTMENT: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RICOH USA: Seeks to Strike Michael Phillips' Declaration RISINGER BROS: Class Cert Responses Due May 26 RISINGER BROS: Seeks More Time to Respond to FLSA Notice ROADRUNNER MANAGEMENT: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California ROCKERZ INC: Fisher Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Class Cert Response in Hohle Due June 5 ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Barto Sues Over Synthetic Fragrance in Facilities RTS LISTINGS: Faces Lenau Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages RYDER DEDICATED: Pickens Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime RYVYL INC: Settlement in Consolidated Derivative Suit Approved SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Cert. Filing Modified to March 18, 2027 SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Hernandez from Custody by May 27 SAVAGE X: Wainwright Labor Class Suit Seeks PAGA Civil Penalties SBC MEDICAL: Sued over Alleged Delaware Charter Violations SEARCH ROI: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Tracking Pixels SEASTAR MEDICAL: Wells Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice SELECTIVE PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay All Wages, Ferrusquilla Alleges SERVBANC HOLDCO: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations SHEIN US: Severino Sues Over Advertising of False Price Discounts SIERRA LIFESTAR: Denial of Class Certification in Martinez Reversed SIMILARWEB INC: Disseminates Cellular Telephone Numbers, Suit Says SINGULARITY FUTURE: Settlement Negotiations Ongoing SKYRISE RESTORATION: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL SMG FOOD: Class Cert Hearing in Ordono Suit Continued to Oct. 15 SMG FOOD: Parties Seek to Continue Hearing on Class Certification SOUTHWOOD REALTY: Bid to Appeal "Hubbard" Certification Denied SPIRIT AVIATION: Dionne Seeks to Recover Damages Under WARN Act SPROUT SOCIAL: Class and Derivative Actions Filed STADIUM CASINO: Cringle Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania STATE FARM: Dismissal of Pearce v. SF Mutual and SF Fire Upheld STEAK 48 BEVERLY HILLS: Ojeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Class, Derivative Actions Filed STYL RESIDENTIAL: Violates Landlord Tenant Laws, Gordon Alleges SUN LIFE: Class Cert Bid in Genesett Suit Due June 19 SUNDEK NATIONAL: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Granted in Part SUPER MICRO: Faces Chung Class Suit Over Common Stock Value Drop SUREFIRE CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges SWEET BASIL: Class Cert Responses in Liu Extended to May 25 SWISSPORT USA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Morgan Alleges SWITCHGEAR POWER: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 13 TACO BELL: Burton Class Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Settlement in Arbuckle Likely to Get Court OK TARGET CORPORATION: Sierra Files Suit Over Mislabeled Food Products TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces Fratis Over Deceptive Hose Products Promo TEMPUR WORLD: Wilson Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website TERRITORIAL SEED: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California TEX-TECH ENGINEERED: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California TOLIN MECHANICAL: Lugo Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. TOPPOINT HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Rodriguez Class Suit TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES: Cousin Sues Over Recent Cyberattack TRANSDEV SERVICES: Allen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TRAVEL LEISURE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Peterson Says TREACE MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of McCluney Securities Suit TYOGA CONTAINER: Janecek Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & PMWA UNITED HEALTH: Life Learning Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Parker Medical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Therapy My Way Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Tiffany Kettermann Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED RENTALS: Van Horst Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois UNITED STATE OIL FUND: Class and Derivative Suits Ongoing UNITED STATES COMMODITY: Faces Mehan Derivative Suit UNITED STATES: Must Oppose Benitez Class Cert Bid by June 5 UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Carter Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas US NATURAL GAS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit USCIS: Bid to Reconsider August 8, 2025 Order Tossed VERSUM MATERIALS: Thomas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. VIRGIN GALACTIC: Faces Class, Derivative Suts W6LS INC: Parties in Oftedahl Suit Must Provide Briefing Schedule WALT DISNEY: Duffield Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection WASHINGTON GROUP LLC: Quintanilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WEAR FELICITY: Hussein Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website WELLS FARGO: Palmer Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settlement in Abarca Suit Gets Prelim OK WHALECO INC: Faces Chandi Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Term Sheet Reached in Aquino Suit WHITE KNIGHT: Macias Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas WHOLE FOODS: Class Cert Bid in Silberstein Extended to August 14 WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Court Tosses "Pavlov" EFTA Claim WISCONSIN RIVER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Corbett Says WOLVERINE WORLD: Faces Various Suits over Contamination Issues WSFS FINANCIAL: Hidalgo Sues Over "Open Concept" Business Layout WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website YOUNG LIVING: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* 374WATER INC: Faces Stockholder Class Action in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------- 374Water Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that on March 18, 2026, a stockholder class action complaint was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating an exculpation provision contained in the company's Amended and Restated Certification of Incorporation filed with the State of Delaware that purports to eliminate or limit the personal liability of the its directors and officers beyond what is permitted under Delaware law. 374Water Inc. develops and commercializes waste treatment and resource recovery solutions, including its AirSCWO systems designed to treat a wide range of organic wastes. The company aims to provide sustainable infrastructure technologies that mitigate waste and pollution while recovering valuable resources. 3M COMPANY: Grove Hill Town Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Utilities Board of the Town of Grove Hill, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00134 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01903-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot Bienefeld, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: Elliot.Bienenfeld@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Jeffrey Donald Price, Esq. Rhon E. Jones, Esq. William Robert Sutton, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 218 Commerce St Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (800) 898-2034 Email: Jeff.Price@BeasleyAllen.com rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com william.sutton@beasleyallen.com - and - Matthew R. Griffith, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 301 St Louis St Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 308-1515 Email: Matt.Griffith@BeasleyAllen.com 3M COMPANY: Talladega Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as City of Talladega Water & Sewer Board, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00611 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01882-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot Bienefeld, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: Elliot.Bienenfeld@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Jeffrey Donald Price, Esq. Rhon E. Jones, Esq. William Robert Sutton, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 218 Commerce St Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (800) 898-2034 Email: Jeff.Price@BeasleyAllen.com rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com william.sutton@beasleyallen.com - and - Matthew R Griffith, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 301 St Louis St Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 308-1515 Email: Matt.Griffith@BeasleyAllen.com 3M COMPANY: Tinker Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Herman Tinker, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00524 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01860-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Property. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A Cade, Esq. Kevin B McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com gregc@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Tippins Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Judy C. Tippins, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00603 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01881-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Property. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A Cade, Esq. Kevin B McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com gregc@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Tuskegee Utilities Board Suit Transferred to D.S.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as The Utilities Board of Tuskegee, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Inc., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company, Dupont De Nemours, Inc., Corteva, Inc., EIDP, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00611 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01878-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot Samuel Bienenfeld, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS, & MILES, P.C. 2839 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (404) 751-1162 Fax: (855) 674-1818 Email: Elliot.Bienenfeld@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Jeffrey Donald Price, Esq. Rhon E. Jones, Esq. William Robert Sutton, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 218 Commerce St Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (800) 898-2034 Email: Jeff.Price@BeasleyAllen.com rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com william.sutton@beasleyallen.com - and - Matthew R Griffith, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 301 St Louis St Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 308-1515 Email: Matt.Griffith@BeasleyAllen.com 3M COMPANY: Weaver Water System Suit Transferred to D.S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as City of Weaver Water System, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00613 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01884-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Donald Price, Esq. Rhon E. Jones, Esq. William Robert Sutton, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 218 Commerce St Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (800) 898-2034 Email: Jeff.Price@BeasleyAllen.com rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com william.sutton@beasleyallen.com - and - Matthew R. Griffith, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 301 St Louis St Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 308-1515 Email: Matt.Griffith@BeasleyAllen.com 3M COMPANY: West Escambia Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as West Escambia Utilities Authority, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00133 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01902-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot Bienefeld, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: Elliot.Bienenfeld@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Jeffrey Donald Price, Esq. Rhon E. Jones, Esq. William Robert Sutton, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 218 Commerce St Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (800) 898-2034 Email: Jeff.Price@BeasleyAllen.com rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com william.sutton@beasleyallen.com - and - Matthew R Griffith, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 301 St Louis St Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 308-1515 Email: Matt.Griffith@BeasleyAllen.com 46 LABS LLC: Velazquez Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 46 Labs LLC. The case is styled as Angel E. Velazquez, on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individuals v. 46 Labs LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01045-JD (W.D. Okla., May 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 46 Labs -- https://www.46labs.com/ -- is the worlds connectivity orchestration company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucius James Wallace, Esq. Paul M. Catalano, Esq. HUMPHREYS WALLACE HUMPHREYS PC 7715 E 111 St., Suite 106 Tulsa, OK 74133 Phone: (918) 747-5300 Fax: (918) 471-2223 Email: Luke@hwh-law.com paul@hwh-law.com - and - Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. KEOGH LAW LTD 55 W Monroe St, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 726-1092 Fax: (312) 726-1093 Email: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Fuchs Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ MADISON FUCHS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00023 (E.D. Tenn., May 15, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the state laws of Tennessee. Specifically, the Defendant failed to pay wages to Plaintiff for all hours worked including for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policies and practice of failing to pay sufficient wages and proper overtime compensation according to federal and state laws. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt worker within the statutory period, until July 2024, and at multiple stores in Tennessee including from its location at 517 S Jackson St, Tullahoma, Tennessee. The Defendant owns and operates restaurants throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 North Central Expy, No. 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: wage@foresterhaynie.com 84 LUMBER: Class Cert. Discovery in Runciman Extended to July 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN, individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No. 2:24-cv-00852-NR-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kelly entered an order granting the joint motion to extend deadlines in the Court's scheduling order. -- Class certification discovery set for May 11, is extended to July 10, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence for May 25, is extended to July 24, 2026. -- The Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence for June 22, is extended to Aug. 21, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of Class certification, due by July 6, is extended to Sept. 4, 2026. -- The Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, due by July 13, is extended to Sept. 11, 2026. 84 Lumber is an operated American building materials supply company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3jZL1e at no extra charge.[CC] ACACIA NETWORK: FLSA Settlement in Neor Suit Gets Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIITOU NEOR and TYRONE WALLACE, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. ACACIA NETWORK, INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, ACACIA NETWORK HOUSING INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, PROMESA RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., d/b/a PROMESA, and JOHN DOE CORP 1-100, Case No. 1:22-cv-04814-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramos entered an order granting: (1) the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for certification of the settlement class, conditional final approval of the class action settlement, and approval of the FLSA settlement; (2) the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of the plaintiffs' service awards; and (3) the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of attorneys' fees. -- The Court adopts and conditionally approves the definition of the settlement "Class" as that term is defined in the settlement agreement: "Named Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs who have filed consent-to-sue forms in this lawsuit, and all non-exempt individuals employed by the Defendants in New York state, including but not limited to, current and former housing specialists, social workers, case managers, case workers, counselors, CASAC counselors and direct care staff from June 8, 2016 and Dec. 23, 2025, exclusive of the 12 Opt-In Plaintiffs who failed to appear for their deposition and who were dismissed from the action based on that default." -- The court confirms as final the appointment of the Plaintiffs Giitou Neor and Tyrone Wallace, as representatives of the Class. -- The Court likewise confirms as final the appointment of C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC as Class Counsel for the Class. -- The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and awards Class Counsel their requested fees of $1,500,000, one-third of the settlement fund, plus costs and expenses in the amount of $17,537.35, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. Acacia offers primary care, behavioral health, nursing home, housing, and education services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VsFC1U at no extra charge.[CC] ACTINIUM PHARMA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that consolidated actions were filed against it pertaining to its material misrepresentations and omissions disclosed in the SEC. A putative securities class action complaint was filed on March 27, 2025, by alleged stockholder Nitin Kohil against the company and executives Sandesh Seth, Avinash Desai, Madhuri Vusirikala, and Sergio Giralt styled "Kohil v. Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.," in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Iomab-B Phase 3 SIERRA Trial during a proposed class period of October 31, 2022 to August 2, 2024, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with plaintiff seeking unspecified damages. On June 24, 2025, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and re-captioned the case as "In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation." Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2025. On October 27, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 19, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition, and on February 2, 2026, defendants filed their reply in support, and the parties are currently awaiting the court's decision on defendants' motion to dismiss. Additionally, on May 5, 2025, a shareholder complaint captioned "Georges v. Seth et al." was filed against certain of the Company's directors and officers, alleging derivative liability based on the same factual allegations made in the securities class action. On May 13, 2025, a second, substantially identical derivative complaint captioned Robinson v. Seth et al. was filed. On June 24, 2025, the court consolidated the derivative cases. On July 29, 2025, the parties to the derivative cases filed a stipulation with the court to stay those matters pending resolution of the motion that defendants will file in the securities class action, and the court so-ordered that stipulation on July 30, 2025, re-captioning the case as "In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation." Separately, on June 17, 2025, a purported shareholder served the company with a demand for books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, generally seeking documents relating to the facts at issue in the above-described securities class action and derivative cases. The company rejected the shareholder demand by letter dated July 8, 2025, the parties continue to discuss the demand, and the shareholder has not followed up on his demand since October 2025. Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing targeted radiotherapies for patients with unmet needs in oncology. The company leverages its Antibody Warhead Enabling technology platform to create novel antibody radiation-conjugates and radioimmunotherapies. ADEBCO INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Smith" FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Martreese Smith, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ADEBCO, Inc. and Debra Young, Defendants, No. 2:20-cv-0003 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Smith's Renewed Motion for Court-Approved Notice and Expedited Discovery was denied as moot. Smith filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging failure to pay overtime and retaliation in violation of the FLSA. Defendants filed counterclaims against Smith for negligence and wage theft; the negligence claim was subsequently dismissed. The Court declined to consider Smith's declaration, which lacked the personal signature required under Sixth Circuit precedent, but otherwise considered his corrected summary judgment responses. ADEBCO is an Interstate Motor Carrier that contracts with prime contractors to provide transportation services for federal interstate improvement projects. It contracted with Kiewit Infrastructure South Company to provide trucks and drivers on the Interstate-440 project in Nashville. All asphalt material came from out-of-state sources, and some drivers were dispatched from or to other states during the project. Smith was employed as a truck driver on the I-440 project and was paid based on billable time. Between July 15 and November 5, 2019, he was paid for 523 hours, including 53 hours of overtime, and received 15 hours and 44 minutes more than GPS ignition records reflected. On November 5, 2019 -- his last day of productive work -- his truck tipped over while he attempted to dump a load; he had been on his cell phone shortly before the accident and had not exited his truck to check ground conditions. The Court held that the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to the FLSA applies. Under Section 213(b)(1) of the FLSA, the overtime requirement does not apply to employees subject to the Secretary of Transportation's jurisdiction. A driver operates in interstate commerce where he transports goods in a practical continuity of movement across state lines, or has a reasonable expectation of being called to do so. The Court found it undisputed that Smith reasonably expected to work in interstate commerce. He admitted he was subject to assignment to any location. ADEBCO's owner Debra Young stated he would have been dispatched to an out-of-state job after the I-440 project concluded, and that ADEBCO shuffled drivers among up to seven projects in other states. Smith offered no admissible evidence to the contrary. Summary judgment on the overtime claim was therefore required. Even absent the MCA exemption, Smith's overtime claim would fail independently. He admitted he was paid for 53 hours of overtime and offered no evidence of additional uncompensated overtime hours. Because he bore the burden of proving work for which he was not properly compensated, his FLSA claim failed on this ground as well. Assuming, without deciding, that Smith satisfied the prima facie elements of a retaliation claim, the Court found he offered no evidence that Defendants' counterclaims were pretextual. Defendants justified the counterclaims based on wage theft and Smith's safety violations -- cell phone use on the job site and failure to inspect ground conditions before dumping -- which allegedly caused the greatest property and monetary loss in ADEBCO's history. Smith pointed to other drivers who caused property damage but were not sued; however, he did not adequately address the differences between those incidents and his own. He failed to meet his burden, and his retaliation claim did not survive summary judgment. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 14, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NfwzfT from PacerMonitor.com ADOBE INC: Bid for Class Certification in Foret Due Jan. 14, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN FORET, v. ADOBE INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-09221-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Pitts entered a case management order as follows: Joinder and other amendments: Aug. 28, 2026 Motion for class certification: Jan. 14, 2027 Opposition to motion for class March 4, 2027 certification; Class expert opposition report; Daubert motion (if any): Reply in support of motion for class April 22, 2027 certification; class expert reply report (if any); Daubert Opposition (if any): Expert discovery cutoff: Sept. 16, 2027 Adobe is an American multinational software company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OuZoaJ at no extra charge.[CC] ADOBE INC: Faces Dorcus Suit Over Unlawful Voiceprint Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDSEY DORCUS, CAROL MARIN, PHILIP ROGERS, ALISON FLOWERS, ROBIN AMER, YOHANCE LACOUR, and VICTORIA NASSIF, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADOBE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-05575 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2026) sues Adobe for unlawful collection, retention, commercial exploitation, dissemination, and inadequate protection of Plaintiffs' voiceprints under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois common law for unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief, including an order requiring Adobe to identify the sources of its voice-training data, destroy unlawfully obtained voiceprints, and destroy or retrain the voice models in which those voiceprints are encoded. The Plaintiffs are seven Illinois residents whose recorded voices are among the most distinguished in their fields -- Pulitzer winners, Peabody honorees, the recipient of the Order of Lincoln, and audiobook narrators recorded for the major American publishers. Adobe sells the Firefly Speech Model, the Firefly Voice Model, Generate Speech, Translate Video, Translate Audio, the Translate and Lip Sync API, and Enhance Speech — and the full range of Adobe's Creative Cloud, Document Cloud, Experience Cloud, and Firefly products -- to Illinois residents and Illinois businesses through adobe.com, firefly.adobe.com, the Creative Cloud and Firefly desktop applications, and Adobe's iOS and Android mobile applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com AIRE ANCIENT: Faces Klein Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KLEIN and ELLASTINA GOSEIN, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. AIRE ANCIENT BATHS UES LLC, and ACQUA ANCIEN BATH NEW YORK LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03879 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action for Defendants' violations of: the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL; the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice at hire containing specific categories of accurate information; the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday; and the NYLL's whistleblower protection law. Plaintiff Klein was employed by the Defendants as a massage therapist supervisor at Defendants' Upper East Side location from mid-April 2025 to December 23, 2025. The Defendants are distinct corporate entities that together operate as a single commercial chain and enterprise known as Aire Ancient Baths, a spa and hospitality business in New York City that provides massage therapy services, water treatments, and food and beverage service to its patrons at multiple locations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 2000 Deer Park Avenue Deer Park, NY 11729 ALCON LABORATORIES: Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Som Dotson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 26STCV10487 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04898 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Alcon Inc. -- https://www.alcon.com/ -- is a Swiss-American pharmaceutical and medical device company specializing in eye care products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq. DECHERT LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 808-5767 Fax: (213) 808-5760 Email: Bill.Donovan@dechert.com ALPHABET INC: Collects Voiceprints Without Notice, Marin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL MARIN, PHILIP ROGERS, ALISON FLOWERS, ROBIN AMER, LINDSEY DORCUS, YOHANCE LACOUR, and VICTORIA NASSIF, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALPHABET, INC., a Delaware corporation, and GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05436 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2026) is a class action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, alleging Google's unlawful collection, retention, commercial exploitation, dissemination, and failure to protect from disclosure of their voiceprints without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users. The Plaintiffs are seven Illinois residents whose recorded voices are among the most distinguished in their fields. They allege that Google extracted their voiceprints without notice or consent, depriving them of the right BIPA guarantees to make an informed decision about the collection and use of their biometric data. Google retains those voiceprints in its commercial models and continues to profit from them. The voiceprints cannot be recovered or replaced. The technology built on those voiceprints now displaces Plaintiffs in the markets where they earn their living, says the suit. The Plaintiffs also assert that Google's commercial use of their voices and identities to build and sell AI products that mimic them violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. They further assert claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the common law of unjust enrichment. Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational technology conglomerate holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com ALSTON & BIRD: Faces Emery Class Action Suit Over Ponzi Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVE EMERY, BRIGITTE EMERY, and KAMRAN SOLEIMANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-23420 (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2026) is an action against Alston & Bird, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Coinbase for aiding and abetting and enabling a massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Christopher Delgado through cryptocurrency investment firm, Goliath Ventures, Inc. Using joint venture agreements and marketing materials, Delgado and his Ponzi scheme promoters misrepresented to investors that they would use investor funds to make deposits into "crypto liquidity pools" and that investors would receive monthly returns generated from fees. In reality, the Goliath Conspirators lured investors into the scheme using JVAs drafted by, and a structure endorsed by, Alston & Bird. And the Goliath Conspirators used Goliath’s accounts at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Coinbase to operate a classic Ponzi scheme. The Goliath Conspirators paid returns to investors using new investor money, raising as much as $328 million from at least 1,500 investors before the Department of Justice arrested the Chief Executive Officer of Goliath, Delgado, on February 24, 2026, the suit contends. The Defendants allegedly knew of and substantially assisted the Goliath Conspirators' scheme. Alston & Bird's participated in the scheme by drafting a legal opinion letter which Goliath used to justify its representation that the enterprise was not subject to the securities laws, when, in fact, it was. Further, Alston & Bird drafted the JVAs by which investor funds were solicited, transferred, and stolen, says the suit. Further, Alston & Bird knew that investors lacked access to internal information and would rely upon the integrity and independence of legal counsel structuring the enterprise. Despite this, Alston & Bird facilitated a structure riddled with conflicts, opacity, and foreseeable risk, while permitting investor-facing reliance upon its legal work product. Goliath marketed itself as a private fund that invested in blockchain and cryptocurrency projects. To raise money from their victims, the Goliath Conspirators falsely represented to investors and prospective investors that their funds would be placed in cryptocurrency liquidity pools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Jordan N. Isern, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (4150 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com jisern@girardsharp.com - and - Jason Kellogg, Esq. Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq. Victoria J. Wilson, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP Miami Tower 100 SE 2nd Street, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com jk@lklsg.com vjw@lklsg.com ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Alto Neuroscience, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2026, that it facing a complaint and a consolidated derivative action claiming, among other things, that the company's offering documents and subsequent public disclosures contained materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts about the prospects of "ALTO-100." On July 21, 2025, a purported stockholder of the company filed a lawsuit against it, certain executive officers, and certain current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-06105). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 23, 2026 and a second amended complaint on April 6, 2026 and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, related to the company's IPO in February 2024, and violations of the Exchange Act thereafter. The proposed classes consist of purchasers or acquirers of the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its IPO as well as purchasers or acquirers of its common stock between March 18, 2024 and October 22, 2024, both dates inclusive. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, fees, and costs. Additionally, a consolidated stockholder derivative action, captioned "In re Alto Neuroscience, Inc. Derivative Litigation," Lead Case No. 5:25-cv-07144-NW, was filed on behalf of the Company against certain executive officers and certain current and former directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise out of the same factual allegations as the putative class action described above, and the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, as well as interest, fees, and costs. The consolidated stockholder derivative action was stayed on January 14, 2026 pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. Alto Neuroscience, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing precision psychiatry treatments using neurobiology-based patient stratification. The company leverages biomarker-driven approaches to match patients with targeted therapies for mental health disorders. AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Herman Suit Over Subscribe & Save Program --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON HERMAN and LEAH HERMAN, a married couple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01674 (W.D. Wash., May 15, 2026) contends that Defendant initially priced eligible Subscribe & Save items at lower prices than third-party sellers to secure subsequent, automated, recurring purchases of the item and then raised the price of eligible Subscribe & Save items after the initial purchase. The Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably expected that when they enrolled in a subscription that expressly advertised savings in lieu of and below the price of individual purchases, the original price would be reasonably consistent with the expected recurring prices, the suit says. The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs intend to seek certification of a Nationwide Class consisting of: "All individuals in the United States who enrolled in Amazon's Subscribe & Save Program and purchased eligible items within the relevant limitations period." Amazon owns and operates the Amazon Store, which is an online store accessible in the United States at www.amazon.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ackley, Esq. Brad J. Moore, Esq. STRITMATTER LAW 3600 15th Ave West, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119 Telephone: (206) 448-1777 Facsimile: (206) 728-2131 E-mail: andrew@stritmatter.com brad@stritmatter.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Nicolas J. Elia Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara J. Watkins, Esq. Stanley D. Ference IV, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com mference@peircelaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Unlawfully Collects Voiceprints, Rogers Says ------------------------------------------------------------ PHILIP ROGERS, CAROL MARIN, ROBIN AMER, LINDSEY DORCUS, YOHANCE LACOUR, and VICTORIA NASSIF, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-05497 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2026) alleges that Amazon unlawfully collected, retained, commercialized, and disseminated their voiceprints, failed to protect them from disclosure, and did so without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users pursuant to the the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs also assert that Amazon's commercial use of their voices and identities to build and sell AI products that mimic them violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the common law of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, actual damages and disgorgement of the profits Amazon has earned from the commercial exploitation of Plaintiffs' biometric data, injunctive relief requiring Amazon, among other things, to cease unconsented collection of voiceprints from Illinois-recorded voice work, to identify the sources of its voice training data, to destroy the voiceprints unlawfully obtained from Plaintiffs and the Class, and to destroy or retrain the Foundational Voice Models in which those voiceprints are encoded and the Voice Products built on those models; and (iv) reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Amazon.com, Inc. built a global voice-AI business on the voices of real people. To train the Foundational Voice Models behind Amazon Polly, Amazon Nova Sonic, Alexa+, Audible AI narration, ACX narrator voice replicas, and Amazon's other commercial voice services, now distributed across more than 600 million Alexa devices and the AWS, Audible, and Kindle ecosystems, Amazon ingested hundreds of thousands of hours of human speech and extracted the unique biometric signatures, the voiceprints, of the speakers in those recordings. Among those speakers are some of the most accomplished broadcast journalists, investigative podcasters, audiobook narrators, and voice performers working in the United States today. The Plaintiffs' voices are among them. The Plaintiffs are six Illinois residents whose recorded voices are among the most distinguished in their fields. They include Philip Rogers, an Emmy- and Edward R. Murrow Award-winning broadcaster whose four decades of on air reporting were conducted from Chicago; Carol Marin, a five-decade broadcast journalist, a three-time Peabody winner, and a recipient of the 2025 Order of Lincoln, Illinois's highest civilian honor; Robin Amer, the creator, host, and showrunner of USA Today's The City and a three-time duPont-Columbia honoree; Lindsey Dorcus, a SOVAS Voice Arts Award-winning narrator of more than two hundred audiobooks for the major American publishers; Yohance Lacour, whose investigative podcast You Didn't See Nothin’ won the 2024 Pulitzer Prize for Audio Reporting; and Victoria Nassif, a Lebanese-Palestinian American audiobook narrator and actor whose Arabic-accented narrations of works by Arab and Palestinian American authors have been commercially released by Penguin Random House, Hachette, and Simon & Schuster. None of them was told that their voice was being used to train Amazon's commercial voice AI. None of them was asked. None of them consented, the suit says. A voiceprint is a digital fingerprint of the human voice, a mathematical representation of the acoustic features (pitch, timbre, resonance) that arise from a person's distinctive physiology, combined with the speech patterns developed over a lifetime: accent, cadence, articulation. Like a fingerprint, a voiceprint identifies the individual and cannot be changed. A Social Security number can be reissued. A credit card can be canceled. A person whose voiceprint has been taken cannot recover it by altering their voice -- the biological and behavioral patterns that produced the voiceprint are the same ones used to speak every day, the suit adds. Amazon.com, Inc. is the parent enterprise that owns, operates, controls, and consolidates the financial results of the business units through which the voice synthesis and voice cloning conduct alleged in this Complaint was and continues to be carried out.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com AMERICAN LENDING: Baldwin Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Lending Center California, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Annita Baldwin, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. American Lending Center California, LLC, American Lending Center Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01073 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute/. American Lending Center (ALC) -- https://americanlendingcenter.com/ -- is a private, non-bank lender committed to advancing U.S. economic growth and job creation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com AMERICAN LENDING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN LENDING CENTER CALIFORNIA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01070 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2026) is an action arising out of the data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant ALC, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff' and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the Data Breach, says the suit. American Lending Center California LLC is a California-regulated lender providing SBA, SSBCI, PACE, and EB-5 financing nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Tel: (202) 429-2290 Email: dperry@masonllp.com AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Parillo Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerisave Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Stacy Parillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 0:26-cv-01840-SAL (D.S.C., May 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Amerisave Mortgage Corporation -- https://www.amerisave.com/ -- provides mortgage financing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com ARBOR REALTY: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Arbor Realty Trust Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that it is currently facing a securities suit and a consolidated derivative action over its stock sales. On July 31, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's shares of common stock between May 7, 2021 and July 11, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. Separately, on March 17, 2025, another purported shareholder filed a substantially similar verified shareholder derivative complaint, and the derivative actions were consolidated as "In re Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," No. 1:25-cv-00639. On April 28, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action, and the action will remain stayed following a dismissal without prejudice until entry of an order resolving a subsequent motion to dismiss in the class action. The consolidated case is in the early stages. On April 18, 2025, another purported shareholder filed a substantially similar verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Eastern District of New York. On May 20, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. On April 14, 2026, the court lifted the stay. The next day, the parties filed a joint letter to the court requesting that the court reinstate the stay pursuant to its May 20, 2025 order. On April 15, 2026, the court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by May 5, 2026, which the parties did, and on May 5, 2026, the court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by June 9, 2026. This case is also in the early stages. On July 18, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for the Baltimore City, Maryland, derivatively and on behalf of the Company, against certain officers and directors of the Board of Directors, asserting demand refusal and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On September 15, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action, and the action will remain stayed following a dismissal without prejudice until entry of an order resolving a subsequent motion to dismiss in the class action. This case is also in the early stages. On July 29, 2025, two purported shareholders filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Eastern District of New York, derivatively and on behalf of the company, against certain officers and directors of the Board of Directors, asserting demand refusal and claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On October 23, 2025, the court granted a joint motion to change venue and transferred the action to the District of Maryland. On November 14, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action, and the action will remain stayed following a dismissal without prejudice until entry of an order resolving a subsequent motion to dismiss in the class action. This case is also in the early stages. On August 5, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in the Eastern District of New York, derivatively and on behalf of the company, against certain officers and directors of the Board of Directors, asserting demand futility and claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. On September 10, 2025, the court entered a joint stipulation and order to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action, and the action will remain stayed following a dismissal without prejudice until entry of an order resolving a subsequent motion to dismiss in the class action. This case is also in the early stages. Arbor Realty Trust Inc. is a real estate investment trust that invests in a diversified portfolio of structured finance assets in the multifamily and commercial real estate markets. The company focuses on bridge and mezzanine loans, agency financing and other real estate-related investments across the United States. ASTRO GALLERY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in SMIP Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUPERB MINERALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., v. ASTRO GALLERY OF GEMS, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02965-JAV-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. Astro is a gem and mineral gallery. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dno0NH at no extra charge.[CC] ATLANTA BREAKFAST: Free Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Byron Free II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATLANTA BREAKFAST CLUB 249 LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02562-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2026), is brought for damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendant for unpaid minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant retained four percent of the Servers' net sales from their tips and improperly distributed the tips to non-tipped employees, such as expediters. As a result of improperly retaining/distributing the Servers' tips, Defendant was/are not permitted to utilize the FLSA's tip credit rate and was/is required to pay the Servers $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant as a server. The Defendant does business as "Atlanta Breakfast Club," a restaurant located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Claremont Avenue, Suite 380 Decatur, GA, 30030 Phone: (404) 400-3600 Email: jscott@radfordscott.com tmonteiro@radfordscott.com - and - Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, New York 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 Email: awhite@vkv.law AUTHID INC: Faces Perez BIPA Class Action ----------------------------------------- AuthID Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that a putative class action lawsuit filed against the company and one of its partners was filed under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. On January 29, 2026, the company was served with a Summons and Complaint in the matter of "Perez v. Intellicheck, Inc. and authID Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It alleged that one of the company's partners, Intellicheck, Inc., a reseller of its services, collected, stored, and used biometric information from the plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in Illinois in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (BIPA). BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation or $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation. The plaintiff seeks class action certification, damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief. authID Inc. is a provider of identity verification and authentication solutions that leverage biometric and cloud technologies to help organizations reduce fraud and improve digital security. The company serves customers across financial services, technology, and other regulated and consumer-facing industries. AUTO PERFECTION: Court OKs Enforcement of $112K Deal in "Hernandez" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jose Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Auto Perfection Associates, Inc. and Daniel Maya, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00767 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff's motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement and entered a consent judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $112,500. Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants, commenced the action asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), including claims arising from alleged wage violations and retaliation. Defendants initially defaulted, and Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Defendants later appeared through counsel and opposed that motion. The court held the motions in abeyance while the parties participated in court-ordered mediation, which was successful. On March 5, 2026, the parties finalized a settlement agreement resolving Plaintiff's claims. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff a total of $75,000. The Agreement required an initial payment of $30,000, with the remaining $45,000 to be paid in nine monthly installments of $5,000 beginning March 30, 2026, and ending November 30, 2026. The Settlement Agreement further provided that if any payment was not timely made, Plaintiff's counsel could issue a written notice of breach. Defendants would then have seven calendar days to cure. Upon an uncured default, Defendants would become jointly and severally liable for $112,500, minus any amount previously paid. Defendants expressly agreed this provision was not a penalty or forfeiture and waived any future argument to the contrary. On March 17, 2026, the court approved the settlement, dismissed the action, and expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to enter the attached consent judgment. The initial payment thereafter became due on April 1, 2026. On April 6, 2026, Defendants advised Plaintiff that they did not expect to make the initial payment. On April 7, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel served Defendants' counsel with a written notice of breach. Defendants failed to cure within seven calendar days and made no payments under the Settlement Agreement. Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff's motion. The court confirmed it had ancillary jurisdiction, as the dismissal order expressly retained jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement. Applying New York contract law, the court found that Plaintiff established all elements of breach: the existence of a contract, Plaintiff's performance, Defendants' breach, and resulting damages. The court further found the $112,500 default amount enforceable, noting the parties were represented by counsel and negotiated the Settlement Agreement at arm's length after mediation, and that the default provision was a sine qua non of Plaintiff's agreement to accept payment over time. Accordingly, the court granted Plaintiff's motion and entered the consent judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $112,500. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aLsnup from PacerMonitor.com AVANTI PIZZA: Faces Mashkulli Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ EJUP MASHKULLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVANTI PIZZA 1 INC., d/b/a Avanti's Pizzeria AVANTI PIZZA 2 INC., d/b/a Avanti's Pizzeria, ARDJENT MASKULI, RIZVAN MASHKULLI and EMIRA MASHKULI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03774 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Mashkulli was employed by the Defendants as a pizza man at Avanti's Pizzeria from on or around February 1, 2020, until on or around March 20, 2025. Avanti Pizza 1 Inc., doing business as Avanti's Pizzeria, is a pizzeria owner and operator located in Staten Island, New York. Avanti Pizza 2 Inc., doing business as Avanti's Pizzeria, is a pizzeria owner and operator located in Staten Island, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 Email: wbrown@bkllawyers.com AXT INC: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------- AXT Inc disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that on April 11, 2025, the plaintiff in a putative shareholder class action filed on May 6, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a notice that he did not intend to further amend his complaint. The court entered judgment on April 14, 2025 and on May 13, 2025, plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which the parties are currently briefing. Suit is on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or acquired the company's publicly traded securities, against the company, Morris S. Young, its Chief Executive Officer, and Gary L. Fischer, its Chief Financial Officer. The court transferred the case to the Northern District of California, where the company's headquarters are located. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period from March 24, 2021 and April 3, 2024, inclusive (the Class Period). The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the defendants, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. Defendants motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the Court. Additionally, on August 22, 2024, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California by an alleged shareholder against Young, Fischer, then-serving directors David C. Chang, Jesse Chen, and Christine Russell, and former director Leonard J. LeBlanc, with the company named as a nominal defendant. Defendants moved to dismiss on November 6, 2024, following which the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 20, 2024. The amended complaint asserted that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company based on the allegations asserted in the original complaint in the putative shareholder class action. On November 27, 2024, defendants again moved to dismiss. On March 17, 2025, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand on its Board of Directors and failed to plead with particularity facts sufficient to excuse the lack of a demand and also for failure to state a claim. AXT Inc is a manufacturer of compound semiconductor substrates used in a variety of optoelectronic, electronic, and photonic applications, serving global customers in the semiconductor industry. The company is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area. BAREFOOT RESORT: $1M Deal in "Dillon" Has Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------- Judge Joseph Dawson III of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, in the case captioned as Michael Keith Dillon and Sandra Marie Dillon, Trustees, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sundek National Accounts d/b/a CGI Commercial, Barefoot Resort Yacht Club Villas Condominium Association, Sto Corp., Jenkins Hancock and Sides Architecture Interiors Engineering, Inc., Randy L. Sides, and others, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-04410-JD and 4:23-cv-04417-JD, granted in part Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Certify Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approve Settlement, Authorize Class Notice, and Schedule Fairness Hearing. This case arises from alleged construction defects and related maintenance, repair, design, construction, and management issues at the Barefoot Resort Yacht Club Villas Horizontal Property Regime in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The Property consists of three condominium buildings containing 145 residential units. Plaintiff is an individual unit owner and member of the Association. Plaintiff alleges that serious defects and deficiencies exist in the Property's exterior cladding system and related components, including improper installation of stucco cladding, cracking and delamination of exterior stucco on all elevations of all buildings, lack of through-wall flashing at window openings, and lack of proper bonding agent applied to concrete surfaces before stucco application. These conditions allegedly allowed water to infiltrate between the exterior cladding and concrete substrate, resulting in delamination, blistering, cracking, and other damage. Plaintiff has asserted damages exceeding $16,000,000, consisting of repair, inspection, and engineering costs. The Association has produced estimates ranging from approximately $6,000,000 to $12,000,000. The proposed settlement provides for total settlement proceeds of $1,000,000, restricted to repairs to the Property's common elements and intended to offset any assessment for common-element repairs that otherwise might be levied against class members. The proposed settlement does not resolve claims against Sundek National Accounts d/b/a CGI Commercial, Thomas E. Sepulveda and his related entities, or Alfredo Chaparro and his related entities. The court certified, for settlement purposes only, a settlement class defined as all persons and entities that own a condominium unit at the Barefoot Resort Yacht Club Villas Condominium in North Myrtle Beach, Horry County, South Carolina. The court found the proposed class ascertainable, as membership can be determined by objective criteria through the Association's ownership records, property management records, and public real estate records. Numerosity was satisfied given the 145-unit Property and the impracticability of joinder. Commonality was satisfied because class members' settlement-related interests arise from the same condominium regime, the same alleged exterior cladding and common-element conditions, and the same proposed use of settlement proceeds. Typicality was satisfied because the named Plaintiff's settlement-related interests are sufficiently aligned with those of absent current owners. Adequacy of representation was satisfied, as proposed class counsel litigated the matter, participated in discovery and motion practice, and negotiated the settlement after two mediations. The court found common questions predominate because the proposed settlement turns on a single property, a common repair fund, and common questions concerning the fairness and scope of the release, and that a class action is superior for the purpose of providing uniform notice, objection rights, opt-out rights, and finality to current owners. The court found the proposed settlement was negotiated at arm's length. Regarding adequacy of relief, while the $1,000,000 settlement represents a significant discount from claimed damages, the record also reflects significant litigation risks, including the court's prior dismissal of Plaintiff's direct claims against Sto Corp., Jenkins Hancock and Sides, and Sides as derivative in nature, as well as statute-of-limitations, statute-of-repose, and release defenses asserted by Defendant. The court directed the parties to file a revised proposed class notice addressing identified deficiencies, including disclosure of attorneys' fees, consequences of opting out, clarification regarding former unit owners, and the scope of any proposed release. A final approval hearing will be scheduled by separate order. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 11, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0xkAhz from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiffs Joseph Odom, Sharon Moody, Robert Mastromarino, William LaVoice, Kimberly Hardy, and Mike Dillon are represented by: James L. Hills, Jr., Esq. MULLEN WYLIE LLC Email: jhills@mullenwylie.com Robert E. Lee, Esq. ROBERT E. LEE LAW OFFICE Email: rel@rellawfirm.com Robert L. Wylie, IV, Esq. MULLEN LAW FIRM Email: rwylie@mullenwylie.com Defendant Barefoot Resort Yacht Club Villas Condominium Association is represented by: Kenneth Ray Moss, Jr., Esq. WRIGHT WORLEY POPE EKSTER AND MOSS Email: kennethmoss@wwpemlaw.com Christy E. Mahon, Esq. SWEENY WINGATE AND BARROW Email: cem@swblaw.com Defendant Sto Corp. is represented by: Connor Evan Johnson, Esq. HALL BOOTH SMITH Email: connorjohnson@hallboothsmith.com Derek Michael Newberry, Esq. HALL BOOTH SMITH Email: dnewberry@hallboothsmith.com Defendants Jenkins Hancock & Sides Architecture Interiors Engineering, Inc. and Randy L. Sides are represented by: Paul E. Sperry, Esq. COPELAND STAIR VALZ AND LOVELL Email: psperry@csvl.law Hannah Elizabeth Smith, Esq. COPELAND STAIR VALZ AND LOVELL Email: hsmith@csvl.law Defendant Sundek National Accounts is represented by: Drew Hamilton Butler, Esq. RICHARDSON PLOWDEN AND ROBINSON Email: dbutler@richardsonplowden.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Order in Drake Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DONIECE DRAKE; DEBORAH BOWLING, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-7158 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order certifying California and New York classes bringing product mislabeling claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750–1784, and the New York General Business Law (GBL), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law, Sections 349, 350. The Ninth Circuit opined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The Plaintiffs adduced sufficient evidence that their CLRA and GBL claims raise common issues that prevail over individualized ones. They have demonstrated that the proposed conjoint analysis, when applied, can establish whether the putative classes in fact paid a premium price for the product. The answer to that question would necessarily apply class-wide. They also adduced sufficient common evidence of deception and causation under the CLRA and the GBL. Hence, the Plaintiffs satisfied the predominance inquiry for Rule 23(b)(3). Because it concluded that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth Circuit accordingly concluded that the Plaintiffs have met their lower burden to demonstrate a question of law or fact common to the putative classes. They also met their burden with respect to typicality and adequacy. Both named Plaintiffs testified that they purchased Natural Fruit Bites products and did so because they believed them to be natural. At the class certification stage, the district court properly considered testimony consistent with the Plaintiffs' theory of injury to determine that the interests of the named Plaintiffs aligned with the interests of each putative class. It therefore concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a). A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/ithev1e BELK INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Magana Due Feb. 16, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen Magana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Belk Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00673-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Aug. 7, 2028 Final pretrial conference: June 22, 2028, 2:00 p.m. Expert discovery cut-off: Aug. 10, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: May 11, 2027 Last day to hear motion for class Certification: April 13, 2027, 2:00 p.m. Replies by: March 30, 2027 Opposition by: March 16, 2027 Last day to file class certification motions: Feb. 16, 2027 Belk Inc. is an American department store chain. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oFvqyF at no extra charge.[CC] BERKELEY RESEARCH: Fails to Secure Personal, Info, Dulisse Says --------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT DULISSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BERKELEY RESEARCH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-04647 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As part of its business practices and to provide consulting services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains confidential PII and PHI of its client' customers, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. On or about March 2, 2025, the Defendant discovered that between February 28, 2025, and March 2, 2025, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and stored Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the suit says. BRG is global consulting firm based in Emeryville, California, that provides services which include specialist consultants, industry experts, renowned academics, and leading-edge data scientists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christipher Frost, Esq. Kevin S. Dicker, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 Facsimile: (424) 600-8504 E-mail: chris@frostllp.com kevin@frostllp.com - and - Jonathan Herrera, Esq. Federman & Sherwood, Esq. 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: jjh@federmanlaw.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Haider Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- MOEN HAIDER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. BIMBO BAKERIES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-03291 (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2026) asserts that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated all owed overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law, and all non-overtime wages in violation of the PWPCL. The Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides in Pennsylvania and worked for Defendant in Pennsylvania. The Defendant is a company operating in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 995-2733 BIOAGE LABS: Appeal Filed After Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ BioAge Labs, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that on January 7, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on allegations that defendants misrepresented and/or omitted certain information in the company's Registration Statement concerning its drug "azelaprag." An amended complaint was filed on June 2, 2025 and on October 30, 2025, the court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. On November 20, 2025, a further amended complaint was filed. On March 2, 2026, the Court entered an order granting defendants' further motion to dismiss with prejudice. On March 27, 2026, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has set the deadline for the plaintiff's opening brief for June 22, 2026. BioAge Labs, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing therapeutics that target the molecular mechanisms of aging to treat age-related diseases. The company leverages human data, artificial intelligence, and translational biology to identify and advance drug candidates. BLACKSTONE INC: Faces Class Action , Derivative Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Blackstone Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that it is facing a class action and derivative suits over alleged improper disclosures filed with the SEC. Eight pension plan members of the Kentucky Retirement System filed a class action against the Blackstone and other defendants that was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and stayed pending the outcome of a previous Attorney General's July 2020 action. In addition, two related shareholder derivative actions are pending that arise out of the same alleged misconduct underlying the same July 2020 action and the aforemention. The first derivative action, brought on behalf of the company against certain current and former officers and directors, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets based on the defendants' alleged failure to properly oversee and disclose the risks associated with the challenged investment practices. A second derivative complaint, filed in a different forum but based on substantially similar factual allegations, likewise seeks to hold the company's leadership liable for purported oversight failures and alleged misstatements concerning the impact of the AG's investigation and related litigation. Blackstone Inc. is a global alternative asset manager specializing in private equity, real estate, credit, and hedge fund solutions for institutional and individual investors. The firm manages capital on behalf of its clients with a focus on long-term value creation across multiple asset classes and strategies. BLINDS CHALET: Cole Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blinds Chalet, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05701 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.blindschalet.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law BLUE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Adams Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUE ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A HOGAN TRANSPORTS, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00749 (E.D. Ga., May 14, 2026) seeks 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. Accordingly, the Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Following a detailed review, Hogan determined that the compromised files contained the information of thousands of individuals, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, government ID numbers, financial account information, and debit/credit card information (Personal Information). The Defendant's misconduct -- failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach -- caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class members across the United States. 8. Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come, says the suit. Hogan is a leading transportation provider offering services such as trucking leases and fleet maintenance across the United States. As part of its business, Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 BRIGHTON FLAMING: Galicia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ CESAR NEJATENGO GALICIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. BRIGHTON FLAMING GRILL INC., 86TH ST FLAMING GRILL INC. d/b/a 86 FLAMING GRILL, 760 BROOKLYN FLAMING GRILL CORP. d/b/a BROOKLYN FLAMING GRILL, BEDFORD FLAMING GRILL INC., FLATBUSH FLAMING GRILL INC., NEW UTRECHT FLAMING GRILL INC., f/k/a FLAMING GRILL, and BASHAR [LNU], Case No. 1:26-cv-02850 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid overtime premiums, due to compensation of overtime at a straight time rate; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act, he and similarly situated individuals were not provided any paid time off for the care of themselves and/or family members. He seeks to recover all applicable remedies under the law, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Corporate Defendants own and operate 6 delis within Brooklyn area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BUTCHERBOX OPCO: Stephens Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MITCHELL STEPHENS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUTCHERBOX OPCO, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-07066-6, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Pierce County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05482 to the proceeding. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that ButcherBox violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act by transmitting commercial email messages containing false or misleading information in the subject line to consumers in the State of Washington. ButcherBox OpCo, LLC is a privately-held subscription-based meat delivery service company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tim J. Filer, Esq. FOSTER GARVEY PC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 447-2904 Facsimile: (206) 749-1939 E-mail: tim.filer@foster.com - and - W. Kyle Tayman, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 Facsimile: (202) 346-4444 E-mail: KTayman@goodwinlaw.com - and - Catherine A. Tremble, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 459-7122 E-mail: CTremble@goodwinlaw.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: DenWest Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as DenWest Restaurants, Inc., MB Arcadia Restaurants, Inc., MB Garden Restaurants, Inc., MB Mesa Restaurants, Inc., MB Mission Restaurants, Inc., MB Santa Ana Restaurants, Inc., Nustar Restaurants, Inc., TIB Enterprises, Inc., TIB Santa Ana Restaurants, Inc., individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Daybreak Foods, Inc., Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, L.P., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Opal Foods LLC, Versova Holdings LLP, Urner Barry Publications, Inc. doing business as: EXPANA, Egg Clearinghouse, Inc, United Egg Producers doing business as: Egg Farmers of America, Case No. 8:26-cv-00949 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00422-jdp to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Clayton Act. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- https://www.calmainefoods.com/ -- is an American fresh egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Steffek, Esq. DAVIS & KUELTHAU, S.C. 318 South Washington Street, Suite 300 Green Bay, WI 54301 Phone: (920) 431-2237 Email: asteffek@dkattorneys.com - and - Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Jeremy Gradwohl, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3080 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: mdellangelo@bm.net jgradwohl@bm.net - and - Sophia Marie Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Phone: (619) 489-0300 Email: srios@bergermontague.com - and - Jenna E. Rousseau, Esq. RENNING, LEWIS & LACY, S.C. 205 Doty Street, Suite 201 Green Bay, WI 54301 Phone: (844) 833-0828 Fax: (608) 333-0828 Email: jrousseau@law-rll.com The Defendants are represented by: Christa Cynthia Cottrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-7075 Email: ccottrell@kirkland.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: LPJJ LLC Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Destination Pet, LLC, et al. The case is styled as LPJJ LLC, a business entity, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc, Versova Holdings, LLC, Hillandale Farms of Pa, Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC, Hillandale Farms East, Inc., Hillandale Farms, Inc., Daybreak Foods, Inc., Urner Barry Publications, Inc. d/b/a Expana, Egg Clearinghouse, Inc., United Egg Producers, John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:26-cv-00425 (W.D. Wis., May 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- https://www.calmainefoods.com/ -- is an American fresh egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Solheim, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 312-6500 Fax: (651) 312-6618 Email: msolheim@larsonking.com CALIFORNIA CASUALTY: Amin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Casualty Indemnity Exchange. The case is styled as Mohammed Amin, Kevin Coyne, and Louise Ramos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange d/b/a California Casualty Group, Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2026-0003331 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice." California Casualty Indemnity Exchange doing business as California Casualty Management Company -- https://www.calcas.com/ -- is a full service insurance coverage provider, offering vehicle, property, and other additional insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Gherna Seeks to Recover Penalties Under PAGA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JODI GHERNA, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC., a California corporation, dba The Commerce, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV14950 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 11, 2026) is a representative action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the PAGA on a representative basis on behalf of all non-exempt employees working directly or indirectly for Defendant in the State of California from one year prior to the filing of the PAGA notice to the conclusion of this action. In this case, the Defendant violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. The Defendant's violations include: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay wages owed during employment; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized employee wage statements; (7) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (8) failure to keep accurate records; (9) failure to provide all of the required information at the time of hiring; and (10) failure to pay sick leave at the proper rate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant in an hourly, non-exempt position since January 2020. From 2023 until she commenced workers' compensation leave on October 23, 2025, Plaintiff regularly worked a schedule consisting of five consecutive days per week -- Tuesday through Saturday -- from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., totaling more than 40 hours per week. California Commerce owns and operates the Commerce Casino & Hotel in Commerce, California, recognized as the world's largest cardroom. Founded in 1983, the complex features over 240 poker and card tables, a 200-room hotel, dining, spa services, and entertainment venues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. Nicholas W. Schieffelin, Esq. EMPLAW, LLP 2235 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942-9433 E-mail: christina@emplawllp.com mitchell@emplawllp.com nick@emplawllp.com CAMILLE ROSE LLC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camille Rose L.L.C. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Camille Rose L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-03687-SHS (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Camille Rose Naturals -- https://www.camillerose.com/ -- is a leading Black-owned and female-led hair care brand that offers a wide range of products suitable for all hair types, including curly, wavy, straight, kinky, and coily.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal CAPITOL FEDERAL: State Court Affirms Dismissal of Harding Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that on October 17, 2025, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals over the dimissal of a putative class action lawsuit over overdraft fees on debit card transactions. The Kansas Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The company was served with a putative class action lawsuit captioned Jennifer Harding, et al. vs. Capitol Federal Savings Bank (Case No. 2022-CV-00598) on November 2, 2022, filed in the Third Judicial District Court, Shawnee County, Kansas against Capitol Federal Savings Bank. The complaint alleges that the bank improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized for payment on sufficient funds but later settled against a negative account balance, commonly referred to as authorize positive purportedly settle negative or APPSN transactions, and merchant re-presentments of previously rejected payment requests. The complaint asserts a breach of contract claim, including breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, with respect to each of these practices. The plaintiffs seek restitution for the allegedly improper fees, alleged actual damages, costs and disbursements, and injunctive relief. On April 5, 2023, the district court granted the bank's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which issued an opinion on October 4, 2024, reversing the district court's ruling. Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. is the holding company for Capitol Federal Savings Bank, a federally chartered stock savings bank headquartered in Topeka, Kansas, offering retail and commercial banking services with a focus on residential mortgage lending and consumer deposit products. CASA TUA: Freddi Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ CLAUDIA FREDDI, on behalf of herself, individually, and all similarly situated persons v. CASA TUA NYC, LLC d/b/a CASA TUA NEW YORK, MIKY GRENDENE, LETICIA HERRERA GRENDENE, VITO CENTRONE and DENISE CENKA, Case No. 1:26-cv-04067 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026) seek to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, despite being required to work in excess of forty hours during many workweeks, throughout her employment, the Defendants paid Plaintiff at an incorrect overtime rate of pay by paying her at rates of pay that were below the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one half times the applicable minimum wage rate or her proper regular hourly rate of pay, whichever is greater, for her hours worked in excess of forty during her workweeks. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt bartender from in or about December 2024 until on or about January 27, 2026. The Defendants operate restaurant businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 CBRE INC: Gertsen Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK GERTSEN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CBRE INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04063 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026) seeks to recover minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, during Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff performed work and tasks related to logistics, warehouse, and machine operations and maintenance. The Plaintiff regularly worked overtime and was not compensated for all hours worked. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons as hourly non-exempt workers. The Defendants continue to employ workers throughout the United States and in New York. The Defendants operate a real estate and property management business throughout the United States and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Miri Trauner, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (516) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com m.trauner@calljustice.com CENTRAL NATIONAL GOTTESMAN: Romero Files Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central National Gottesman Inc. The case is styled as Alexis Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central National Gottesman Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-03747 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Central National-Gottesman Inc. -- https://www.cng-inc.com/ -- is one of the world's largest distributors of pulp, paper, packaging, nonwovens & fibers, tissue, metals and wood products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com CHAMPION PETFOODS: Eilender Sues Over Grain Free Products False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH EILENDER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04103-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026) contends that Defendant uses false advertising and deceptive conduct which promises health-related benefits beyond a normal dog food to lure pet owners into purchases. To compound matters, the Grain Free Products are not only potentially harmful to canine health but command a price premium consistent with these misrepresentations that Plaintiff and Class members would not have paid had they known that Defendant's representations are false and misleading. The Grain Free Products also intentionally contain no warning whatsoever about potential risks and the tendency to cause nutritional deficiencies and serious health risks. In fact, the Defendant even muddied the waters by refuting potential risks of consumption of the Grain Free Products, the suit says. The action seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees under state statutes and common law doctrines due to Defendant's acute failure to ensure that the Grain Free Products were distributed, produced, and sold in a manner consistent with advertising. The Defendant is distributes dog food products in the United States. The Defendant sells millions of dollars of dog food annually, including specialized dog food products. One such type of specialized dog food product is called "grain free" dog food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC Forest Hills Tower 118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 444 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com CHAMPIONX CORP: Fails to Disclose Material Info, Daytona Beach Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' & FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHAMPIONX CORPORATION, SIVASANKARAN SOMASUNDARAM, and KENNETH M. FISHER, Case No. 1:26-cv-04095 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all sellers of the common stock of ChampionX between February 29, 2024 and April 1, 2024, inclusive, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action arises from Defendants' repurchase of millions of dollars' worth of ChampionX shares without disclosing material nonpublic information about SLB's offers to purchase ChampionX at a premium to then-current prices, which, if disclosed as required, would have indicated to investors that ChampionX's stock was worth significantly more. The Class Period begins on February 29, 2024. On that date, SLB approached ChampionX with a credible offer to acquire all of the Company's outstanding stock in an all-stock transaction at a price of $36.70 per share of ChampionX common stock --a significant premium over ChampionX's then stock price of $31.06 per share. Later, on March 7, 2024, after ChampionX informed SLB that the Board was willing to engage in further discussions if SLB increased its offer price, SLB submitted an updated offer to acquire all of ChampionX's outstanding stock for $37.80 per share, payable in shares of SLB common stock. Although ChampionX declined the terms of these offers, the Defendants continued to engage with SLB, which was determined to acquire the Company and returned with repeated offers at significant premiums to ChampionX stock's market price, culminating in SLB's acquisition of ChampionX at a significant premium in July 2025. The Defendants' violations continued throughout the Class Period, as they failed to disclose the subsequent offers made by ChampionX. In total, SLB made four offers to acquire ChampionX: (i) on February 29, 2024, at a price of $36.70 per share; (ii) on March 7, 2024, at a price of $37.80 per share; (iii) on March 29, 2024, at a price of $40.01 per share; and (iv) on March 30, 2024, at a price of $40.29 per share. The Defendants seriously considered each proposal and continued to engage with SLB even after rejecting a proposal, in the hopes of receiving an improved offer. At the same time as these credible offers from a highly interested bidder in SLB, Defendants continued to repurchase ChampionX shares throughout the Class Period. Specifically, as reported in the Company's SEC filings, ChampionX repurchased approximately 216,000 shares for an average price of $31.80 per share during the month of March 2024, despite knowing that SLB was offering a significant premium to ChampionX's then current stock price. On April 2, 2024, ChampionX and SLB issued a joint press release announcing the ChampionX made no disclosure concerning SLB's offers for over a month, while the Company repurchased millions of dollars of its own shares at prices far below SLB's offers. When investors learned the truth that SLB was willing to buy all of the Company's outstanding stock for a significant premium above the trading price, ChampionX's stock price climbed sharply, says the suit. The action seeks damages on behalf of sellers of ChampionX stock during the Class Period who were harmed as a result of these violations of the federal securities laws by Defendants., The Plaintiff sold ChampionX common stock during the Class Period and was allegedly damaged thereby. ChampionX is a global provider of chemistry solutions, artificial lift systems, and highly engineered equipment and technologies for the drilling and production of oil and gas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq. Justyn Millamena, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com jruthizer@wolfpopper.com jmillamena@wolfpopper.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Contreras Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luis Cabrera Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a foreign profit corporation; CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CMG STRATEGY CO., LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-11268-1 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01547. Two of the Complaint's four causes of action are duplicative of claims already asserted in the Related Complaint. Specifically, the Complaint's Third Cause of Action for wage theft under SMC 14.20.020 and Fourth Cause of Action for failure to provide written notice of compensation under SMC 14.20.025.E assert violations of the identical statutory provisions and rely on overlapping factual predicates as the Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action in the Related Complaint. Both complaints allege that Chipotle failed to pay all compensation owed on established regular pay days in violation of SMC 14.0.020 and issued wage statements omitting owed compensation in violation of SMC 14.20.025.E.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Phone: 206.839.4800 Email: Anthony.Todaro@us.dlapiper.com CITY OUTREACH: Cunningham Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ April Cunningham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. City Outreach, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00834 (E.D. Wis., May 12, 2026) seeks redress for City Outreach's failure to pay overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and straight time wages required by Wisconsin law, and other compensation required by contract. Plaintiff Cunningham is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin who is a former employee of City Outreach. City Outreach is a non-stock corporation registered with the State of Wisconsin. The Defendant is engaged in the ordinary commercial activity of providing counseling and rehabilitative services to clients, in exchange for hourly payments made by insurance companies, third party payers, and Federal and Wisconsin governmental agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite l00MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com CLARRIXXA'S CLEANING: Montelongo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarrixxa's Cleaning Services, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Montelongo, in a representative capacity, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Clarrixxa's Cleaning Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003319 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Clarissa Cleaning Services -- https://clarissacleaning.services/ -- is a professional cleaning company serving residential and commercial spaces in Long Island and New York City..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Yaeckel, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 3rd Ave. San Diego, CA 92101-1514 Phone: 619-702-6760 Fax: 619-702-6761 Email: Yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com CODE 3: Jerry Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- EUREKUS JERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CODE 3 SECURITY L.L.C., Case No. 2:26-cv-11599-FKB-APP (E.D. Mich., May 15, 2026) arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Michigan Improved Workplace Opportunity Wage Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all Michigan-based Code 3 employees who, during the applicable statutes of limitations, were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees and thus deprived of statutorily guaranteed overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. The individual and class/collective action claims are seeking backpay for statutorily guaranteed overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek within the relevant statute of limitations, liquidated damages per statute. Plaintiff Eurekus Jerry is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan, where he resides and resided during the period of time relevant to this lawsuit. The Defendant is a security company that provides security officers and related security services to businesses, individuals, public figures, events, and residential complexes in Michigan, including armed and unarmed security officers for static protection (i.e., in place at a client location) or security patrols, officers who monitor security cameras, certified canine patrol officers, and dispatchers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Clark, Esq. Amy Marino, Esq. GREGORY, MOORE, BROOKS CLARK & HELTON, P.C. 28 W. Adams, Ste. 300 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 964-5600 E-mail: amy@unionlaw.net matt@unionlaw.net COMPASS INC: Multiple Antitrust Class Actions Filed --------------------------------------------------- Compass, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that Compass is named in various antitrust suits with regards to its involvement in realtor associations. Compass is named as a defendant in four putative class action lawsuits captioned "Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al.," No. 4:23-cv-00788-FJG (W.D. Mo.), filed on October 31, 2023, "Grace v. National Association of Realtors, et al.," No. 3:23-cv-06352 (N.D. Cal.), filed on December 8, 2023, "Fierro, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al.," Case No. 2:24-cv-00449 (C.D. Cal.), filed on January 17, 2024, and "Whaley v. Arizona Association of Realtors," Case No. 2:24-cv-00105 (D. Nev.), filed on January 15, 2024. These actions allege, among other things, that certain trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. Another case "Umpa, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al.," 4:23-cv-00945 (W.D. Mo.), filed on December 27, 2023, was consolidated into the Gibson matter on April 23, 2024, "Boykin v. National Association of Realtors, et al.," No. 2:24-cv-00340 (D. Nev.), filed on February 16, 2024, was terminated and consolidated into the Whaley matter on March 20, 2024. The plaintiffs in Gibson allege a nationwide scope, while the Grace and Fierro matters are limited in scope to Northern California and Southern California, respectively, and the Whaley matter is limited in scope to Nevada. It further discloses that two putative class action lawsuits, "March v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al.," No. 1:23-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on November 13, 2023, and "Friedman v. Real Estate Board of New York, et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-09601 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 18, 2024, also name the company as a defendant. In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Real Estate Board of New York and a number of real estate brokerages engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by entering into a continuing agreement to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to brokers representing buyers. The Friedman and March matters also allege violations of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. 340, and the March matter further seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act and are limited in scope to the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Manhattan, respectively. It also notes that, since late October 2023, dozens of additional copycat lawsuits with similar or related claims have been filed against various real estate brokerages, the National Association of Realtors, multiple listing services, and state and local Realtor associations, fewer than one-third of which name the company, its subsidiaries, or franchisees. In those cases, plaintiffs have generally either agreed to dismiss or stay the actions against the company, its subsidiaries, or franchisees pending the conclusion of the appeals of the trial court's grant of final approval of the Compass settlements, including the putative class action lawsuits of "QJ Team, LLC, et al. v. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc., et al.," No. 4:23-cv-01013 (E.D. Tex.), filed on November 13, 2023, and "Peiffer v. Latter & Blum Holding, LLC, et al." In Batton, the plaintiffs take issue with certain policies of the National Association of Realtors, including those related to buyer-broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl, Burnett, and Nosalek matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers instead of sellers, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining the National Association of Realtors from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action, as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Compass, Inc. is a technology-enabled residential real estate brokerage providing integrated software, marketing, and transaction services to real estate agents and their clients across the United States. The company operates a cloud-based platform designed to streamline the process of buying, selling, and renting homes. COREWEAVE INC: Class Action, Derivative Shareholder Suits Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- CoreWeave, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, May 8, 2026, that a putative class action captioned "Raymond Masaitis v. CoreWeave, Inc. et al." was filed on January 12, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the cmpany and certain of its officers. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified damages along with payment of attorneys' fees and other costs. Additionally, on February 10, 2026, two stockholder derivative actions were filed in the District of New Jersey, and on March 5, 2026, a third stockholder derivative action was filed in the same court. Each of these derivative actions was purportedly filed on behalf of the company against certain of its officers and directors and, as a nominal defendant, the company, and seeks unspecified damages along with payment of attorneys' fees and other costs on behalf of the company based on substantially the same allegations as the aforementioned securities action. On April 1, 2026, the District of New Jersey consolidated the derivative actions under the caption "In Re CoreWeave, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation." CoreWeave, Inc. is a cloud infrastructure company specializing in GPU-accelerated compute services for artificial intelligence, machine learning, visual effects, and other high-performance workloads. The company provides scalable, high-performance cloud solutions to enterprises, developers, and content creators. CORMEDIX INC: Faces Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------- CorMedix Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that on November 18, 2025, the parties in a consolidated class action participated in a mediation before Michelle Yoshida, Esq. of Phillips ADR, and on December 20, 2025, the parties signed a binding settlement term sheet, followed by the execution of a binding stipulation of settlement on January 19, 2026. Two putative class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September 13, 2021, had been consolidated into "In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:21-cv-14020-JXN-CLW. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On December 1, 2025, in response to, among other things, the death of an officer of the company, lead plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend the complaint, which the Court granted on December 17, 2025. The CorMedix defendants filed their answer to the Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 2, 2026. Additionally, on or about October 13, 2021, a purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled "Voter v. Baluch, et al.," Case No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW. The complaint names as defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Greg Duncan, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts and Joseph Todisco, along with the company as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets against the individual defendants, and a claim for contribution for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against certain defendants. On January 21, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the court entered an order staying the case while the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit was pending. In addition to the securities class action, on or about January 13, 2023, another purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled "DeSalvo v. Costa, et al.," Case No. 2:23-cv-00150-JXN-CLW. The complaint names as defendants Paulo F. Costa, Janet D. Dillione, Greg Duncan, Alan Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Joseph Todisco, Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, and John L. Armstrong, along with the Company as Nominal Defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the individual defendants. On or about January 25, 2023, another purported shareholder, derivatively and on behalf of the company, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled "Scullion v. Baluch, et al.," Case No. 2:23-cv-00406-ES-ESK. The complaint names as defendants Khoso Baluch, Janet Dillione, Alan W. Dunton, Myron Kaplan, Steven Lefkowitz, Paulo F. Costa, Gregory Duncan, Matthew David, and Phoebe Mounts, along with the company as nominal defendant, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duty. On or about April 18, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the above-mentioned shareholder derivative complaints for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings, trial and appeal. The consolidated derivative action is entitled In re CorMedix Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2:21-cv-18493-JXN-LDW, and the provisions of the order to stay that was previously entered in the Voter litigation on January 21, 2022 applied to the consolidated derivative action. On August 19, 2025, the court issued a revised opinion and order denying the CorMedix defendants motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the securities litigation. On November 10, 2025, the derivative plaintiffs filed a verified consolidated shareholder derivative complaint, which alleges that during the relevant period (October 16, 2019 through August 8, 2022), the individual defendants made or caused to be made materially false and misleading statements regarding CorMedixs business and operations, specifically relating to purported manufacturing deficiencies that the individual defendants knew or should have known would impact the FDA approval of the developmental drug "DefenCath" prior to its ultimate approval by the FDA. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified damages and corporate governance reforms. On November 18, 2025, the parties participated in a mediation before Michelle Yoshida, Esq. of Phillips ADR, and on December 20, 2025, the parties signed a binding settlement term sheet, followed by the execution of a binding stipulation of settlement on January 19, 2026. CorMedix Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases. The company is best known for DefenCath, a catheter lock solution intended to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in hemodialysis patients. COTY DTC: Loses Bid to Keep "Crooks" Email Suit in Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Myesha Crooks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Coty DTC Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-26-0078 (D. Md.), Senior Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied as moot Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and, in the alternative, to dismiss. Plaintiff originally filed this putative class action against Defendant in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, alleging that Defendant sent her and other members of the putative plaintiff class emails with subject lines appearing to offer "free gifts" from the beauty brand Kylie Cosmetics. The body of those emails, however, contained conditions to receipt of the alleged free gifts that were not disclosed in the subject line. On that basis alone, she alleged that Defendant violated the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act (MCEMA), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Sections 14-3001 et seq. She sought statutory damages of $500 per violation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and claimed no other injury. On January 9, 2026, Defendant removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing solely that Defendant could not prove her complaint alleged a concrete injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing. The court noted this is the third in a series of MCEMA cases filed by Plaintiff's attorneys. In both prior cases -- Mulanena v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (D. Md. May 4, 2026) and Asabre v. Retail Services & Systems, Inc. (D. Md. Sept. 19, 2022) -- this court had ordered remand for lack of Article III standing, finding the plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a concrete injury in fact under the Supreme Court's holding in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021). The court reaffirmed that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation, and that an injury in law is not an injury in fact. The court found Plaintiff alleged no real-world harm. Crucially, she did not claim the messages were unsolicited or intrusive and in fact asserted that she wanted to continue receiving emails from Defendant -- she just did not want those emails to have deceptive subject lines. Defendant argued that a single sentence in the complaint -- that Defendant clogs email inboxes with false information and violates Plaintiff's right to be free from deceptive commercial emails -- established a concrete injury in fact. The court rejected this, noting Defendant made no argument for any relevant traditional harm analogue, and that the court in Mulanena had already considered multiple such analogues and found each unavailing. Defendant alternatively argued that if the court found no injury in fact, the lawsuit was preempted by the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM). The court rejected this argument as well, noting that a preemption argument does not provide an exception to the mandate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) that a federal court lacking jurisdiction must remand rather than dismiss. The court held that Defendant could not meet its burden of proving Plaintiff had Article III standing, as the complaint alleged statutory harm alone without any concrete harm. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to remand and ordered the case remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss was denied as moot. The case was closed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eVMFiR from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Coty DTC Holdings, LLC is represented by: Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Email: dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Email: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com Abraham J. Shanedling, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Email: ashanedling@sheppardmullin.com Plaintiff Myesha Crooks is represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC Email: clz@zlawmaryland.com David Matthew Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW, LLC Email: dmt@zlawmaryland.com Defendant Coty DTC Holdings, LLC is represented by: Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Email: dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Email: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com Abraham J. Shanedling, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Email: ashanedling@sheppardmullin.com Plaintiff Myesha Crooks is represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC Email: clz@zlawmaryland.com David Matthew Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW, LLC Email: dmt@zlawmaryland.com COTY INC: CHEN Securities Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- JIAN JUN CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COTY INC., SUE NABI, and LAURENT MERCIER, Case No. 1:26-cv-04034 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Coty common stock between May 7, 2025, to February 4, 2026, inclusive seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. Accordingly, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Coty's growth potential for the fiscal year 2026. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company’s ability to drive growth and profitability in the fiscal year 2026 by improving fragrance sales, building a strong innovation pipeline and making operational improvements. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Coty’s slowing growth in the beauty market, notably, the Consumer Beauty market was underperforming, margins were compressed by increased marketing investments and there was slowing growth in its Prestige fragrance segment. After the market closed on February 4 and 5, 2026, Coty announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2026, unveiling disappointing earnings results with worsening performance in the Consumer Beauty segment. The price of Coty's common stock declined from a closing market price of $3.43 per share on February 4, 2026, to $2.66 per share on February 6, 2026, a decline of about 22%. The Plaintiff purchased Coty common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants’ fraud. Plaintiff’s Certification evidencing his transaction(s) in Coty common stock is attached hereto. Coty, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells branded beauty products worldwide. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com CREATORS GUILD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREATORS GUILD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05174 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.mannkitchen.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Creators Guild, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 CVS PHARMACY: Intercepts Users' Confidential Info, Brooks Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARIEL BROOKS, JUSTIN BREWER, ALEX SISTI, and MARC WEINBERGER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. and CRITEO CORP., Case No. CACE-26-008094 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 14, 2026) contends that CVS conspires with Third Party Trackers to intercept, eavesdrop, and/or record sensitive and confidential confidential personal and medical communications of Website users via third-party code embedded on the Website. The Third Party Trackers involve in this suit include Adobe, Inc., Criteo, Medallia, Quantum Metric, Inc. The Plaintiffs and all other Class Members are users who communicated with CVS through the Website and/or App. They shared information, including their protected health and personally identifiable information with the reasonable belief that CVS would take appropriate steps to maintain the Information. CVS, which has over 36 million customers, maintains an online pharmacy, retail store for over-the-counter medical products, vaccination center, and health clinic, all through its store for over-the-counter medical products, vaccination center, and health clinic, all through its website, www.cvs.com, and its CVS Pharmacy mobile application, which is offered website,www.cvs.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow FBN, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROWP.A. W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd A venue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone:(866)252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette St. Conshohocken, PA 19428 923 Fayette St. Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: jjagher@jjlmlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue ofthe Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone:(646)837-1750 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com D.D.M. MEDICAL: Kwaak Sues Over Dispatchers' Unpaid Wages in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT KWAAK and JASON JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D.D.M. MEDICAL DELIVERY SERVICE, LLC, DEVON MARTINS, and DENNIS MAYERS, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02726 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New Jersey Wage Hour Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unlawful deductions and untimely payment of wages, and unreimbursed expenses. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as dispatchers and delivery drivers. D.D.M. Medical Delivery Service, LLC is a provider of medical delivery services based in New Hyde Park, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Marlborough, Esq. THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, PC 375 Sunrise Highway, Suite 3 Lynbrook, NY 11563 Telephone: (212) 991-8960 Email: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com - and - Matthew B. Weinick, Esq. FAMIGHETTI & WEINICK, PLLC 25 Melville Park Rd., #235, Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 352-0050 Email: mbw@fwlawpllc.com DAVEK ACCESSORIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Davek Accessories Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00665 (N.D. Ind., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://davekny.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly, the Website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the Website. Thus, the Defendant excludes the blind and visually impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Davek Accessories Inc. owns the website, a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view umbrellas and travel accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law DEERE & CO: Restricts Agriculture Equipment Repairs, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTY WEBBER & COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. DEERE & COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-05637 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2026) is a class action complaint against Deere for violations of federal antitrust law. Accordingly, the focus of antitrust enforcement against Deere to date has concerned the agricultural community. Those enforcement efforts have focused on how Deere restricts farmers' ability to fix agriculture equipment like tractors and combines, forcing them to seek repair services from one of Deere's authorized dealers. Despite the public scrutiny of Deere's restrictions on agriculture equipment repairs, to date, few have noted the impact of similar anticompetitive restrictions in another massive segment of Deere's business -- Construction and Forestry. In the over $11 billion dollar C&F segment, which constitutes 25% of Deere's 2025 revenue, Deere has pursued the same anticompetitive scheme condemned by courts, regulatory agencies, and the public for its harmful effects on farmers, the suit says. As a result of this conduct, Deere and the Deere Dealers completely control the market for Restricted Deere C&F Repairs, thereby coercing Deere C&F equipment owners to purchase labor and parts at artificially inflated prices. Deere's scheme centers on its ability to restrict owners' and IRPs' access to the tools and technical information that are necessary for performing repairs on Deere C&F equipment. Specifically, newer Deere C&F equipment requires a tool to diagnose and effect repairs of Deere C&F equipment. This tool has both a hardware and software component. On the hardware side, the tool consists of an Electronic Data Link (EDL) interface, cables, and a computer. Plaintiff Christy Webber & Company operates a full-service commercial, municipal, and residential landscaping service. Christy Webber is located in Chicago, Illinois. Deere is a manufacturer of construction and forestry equipment and other machinery and conducts business throughout the United States and the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. Kristofer S. Riddle, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C 120 N. LaSalle Street, 36th Floor Chicago, IL Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com ksr@cliffordlaw.com - and - James J. Kovacs, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 600 14th St. NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (646) 960-8611 E-mail: james@scl-llp.com - and - Ethan E. Litwin, Esq. Lily Fagin, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, Suite 1900 New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8610 E-mail: ethan@scl-llp.com lfagin@scl-llp.com - and - Judith A. Zahid, Esq. Eric Buetzow, Esq. Matt Veldman, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 633-1916 E-mail: jzahid@zellelaw.com ebuetzow@zellelaw.com mveldman@zellelaw.com - and - Christian Hudson, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 222 Livingston Street, Unit 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com DESTINATION PET LLC: Alzate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Destination Pet, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Fabio Alejandro Cortes Alzate, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Destination Pet, LLC, Rover Kennels, Case No. 26STCV14580 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Destination Pet -- https://www.destinationpet.com/ -- is a nationwide community of skilled and passionate pet professionals dedicated to providing total pet health care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com DJGN LEXINGTON: $750K Settlement in "Landis" Has Prelim OK ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Caleb Landis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DJGN Lexington, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:25-394-DCR (E.D. Ky.), Judge Danny C. Reeves of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class and collective action settlement on May 15, 2026. Plaintiffs Caleb Landis, Brandon Zimmerman, and Matthew Smith brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and wage-and-hour laws of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana against defendants DJGN Lexington, LLC, DJGN Bowling Green, LLC, Ricci Culinary Holding Company, LLC, Ricci Culinary Management Group, LLC, DJGN LLC, DJGN Indy, LLC, and Tony Ricci, who own and operate the Tony's Steak & Seafood restaurant chain in those states. The First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint consolidates claims from this action and two related matters filed in the Southern District of Ohio and the Southern District of Indiana. The parties resolved the plaintiffs' claims through formal mediation and agreed to seek approval in this court. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the FLSA and applicable state laws by requiring servers to share a portion of their earned customer tips with back-of-house employees -- specifically, service bartenders - who did not interact with customers. The plaintiffs contend that servers were paid a sub-minimum tipped hourly rate plus customer tips, and that defendants used those tips to compensate service bartenders who prepared drinks for servers to deliver to customers. The plaintiffs claim they and similarly situated employees are entitled to unpaid and underpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated and treble damages, and statutory penalties, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The court preliminarily certified three Rule 23(b)(3) settlement classes: (i) the Kentucky Class, comprising all current and former servers paid less than minimum wage plus tips at defendants' Bowling Green and/or Lexington, Kentucky restaurants from October 21, 2022, through February 24, 2026; (ii) the Ohio Class, comprising all current and former servers at defendants' Cincinnati, Ohio restaurant from October 9, 2022, through February 24, 2026; and (iii) the Indiana Class, comprising all current and former servers at defendants' Indianapolis, Indiana restaurant from October 29, 2023, through February 24, 2026. The Rule 23 classes include 155 total members: 77 in the Kentucky class, 36 in the Ohio class, and 42 in the Indiana class. The FLSA collective action consists of 46 class members who opted into the actions. The court found all Rule 23(a) prerequisites satisfied for preliminary certification purposes. On numerosity, the court noted that fear of retaliation and litigation hardship support a finding of impracticability of joinder, even where the Ohio class falls slightly below the 40-member benchmark. On commonality, the central question is whether service bartenders at Tony's restaurants were improperly included in the server tip share in violation of the FLSA and applicable state wage-and-hour laws. On typicality, each named plaintiff worked at a location in the same state as the class members they sought to represent, and their claims arose from the same alleged conduct. On adequacy, the named plaintiffs and putative class members share a common goal of maximizing recovery with no apparent conflict between them. The court appointed David W. Garrison, Joshua A. Frank, and Nicole A. Chanin of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC as class counsel. The defendants agreed to pay $750,000 into a common fund covering payments to Rule 23 class members, attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration expenses, and service awards to class representatives. Defendants will pay the employer's share of payroll taxes separately. The plaintiffs seek up to one-third of the fund as attorneys' fees ($250,000), with costs and administration expenses estimated at $23,000. Each named plaintiff will receive a $5,000 service award, totaling $15,000. The remaining portion, estimated at $462,000, will be distributed to Rule 23 class members on a pro rata basis, calculated according to the number of qualifying shifts worked during which their tips were shared with service bartenders. Each payment will be allocated 50 percent as wages subject to withholdings and 50 percent as liquidated damages not subject to withholdings. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under both the Sixth Circuit's UAW factors and Rule 23(e)(2). It found no evidence of fraud or collusion, noting that the parties negotiated at arm's length with the assistance of an experienced mediator. The one-third common-fund attorney fee award was approved as reasonable, consistent with awards in comparable FLSA and Rule 23 cases in the circuit. The $5,000 service awards to each named plaintiff were found justified given the risks assumed and each plaintiff's active participation in the litigation. A fairness hearing is scheduled for October 13, 2026, at the United States Courthouse in Lexington, Kentucky. Class counsel is directed to file a motion for final approval and a motion for payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses no later than 14 days before the hearing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=azZoqD from PacerMonitor.com DRAGONFLY ENERGY: Faces Consumer Class Actions, Derivative Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that it is currently facing several shareholder suits and derivative actions with regards to its disclosures. A putative consumer class action titled "Berdner et al v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. d/b/a Battle Born" was filed on February 13, 2026 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma. The company was served with the complaint on March 31, 2026. The case was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 30, 2026. The plaintiffs purport to represent four classes of purchasers of certain Battle Born branded 100 amp-hour 12V LiFePo4 batteries. The plaintiffs allege that the products share a uniform design defect related to the positive terminal connection that can result in overheating, premature failure, and safety risk. The complaint asserts violations of various state consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranties (including under California law), and false advertising. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On May 20, 2026, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against certain of the its current and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets in connection with the design, marketing, and sale of the Battle Born branded batteries mentioned in the Berdner litigation. The derivative complaint, which is brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the company, seeks, among other relief, damages allegedly sustained by the Company, corporate governance reforms, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys' fees and costs. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. is a renewable energy storage company focused on the design, development, and sale of lithium-ion battery packs and related energy storage solutions for RV, marine, residential, and industrial applications. The company markets its products under the Battle Born Batteries brand and other labels through direct-to-consumer channels and distribution partners. DRG HOSPITALITY: Caywood Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Caywood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRG Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Wicked Butcher and Wicked Butcher 1 LLC d/b/a Wicked Butcher, Case No. 3:26-cv-01467-E (N.D. Tex., May 6, 2026), is brought implicating the Defendants and their practice of underpaying their employees Plaintiff--including failing to pay them the minimum wage mandated by federal law ("FLSA"). The Defendants paid their employees working as servers, including Plaintiff, less than $7.25 per hour—the minimum wage required by Section 206 of the FLSA. Instead of paying their servers the minimum wage required by Section 206 of the FLSA, it appears Defendants may have been attempting to take credit for the tips their employees earned and using those tips to offset Defendants' minimum wage obligation under the FLSA. Because Defendants failed to comply with the requirements that would allow them to take a tip credit, Defendants shall be retroactively divested of the tip credit and must compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the minimum wage, unencumbered by the tip credit, for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a server for Defendants at Wicked Butcher. The Defendants own and operate the dining establishment commonly known as "Wicked Butcher."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: 817-479-9229 Fax: 817-840-5102 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com DULUTH HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DULUTH HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.duluthtrading.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Duluth Holdings Inc., doing business as Duluth Trading Company, designs and retails apparel products. The Company offers shirts, t-shirts, jeans, footwear, sweaters, big and tall pants, shorts, boxers, socks, jackets, coats, gloves, rainwear, hats, glasses, and watches. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com E-TELECOM LLC: Underpays Company Employees, Morris Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MORRIS JR., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E-TELECOM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00489 (E.D. Tex., May 11, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). The complaint relates that E-Telecom knowingly, willfully, and with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the proper amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each week. The decision and practice by E-Telecom to not pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members overtime for all hours worked over 40 each week was willful, and was neither reasonable nor in good faith, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members seek payment of overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek pursuant to the FLSA in an amount equal to one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay, plus liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff James Morris, Jr. was employed by E-Telecom in Illinois. Defendant E-Telecom, LLC is a provider of complete, customized and scalable supply chain and network transformation solutions for the communication industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com EARGO HEARING: Faces Esperanza Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails ------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EARGO HEARING, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a EARGO.COM, Case No. 2:26-cv-05342 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) is a class action complaint for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. Accordingly, the e-mail received by Plaintiff appears to be official government communication regarding "Senior Discounts" that are only available to senior citizens. The e-mail instructs recipients to visit what purports to be an official U.S. government website (seniordiscounts.live) so that they can "continue to enjoy your retirement and live your life without any extra cost." That website then contains a link to EARGO.COM, where the Defendant secretly installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on every visitor's device. Those tracking technologies enable the Defendant and its partners to follow visitors' behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance, the suit contends. The Plaintiff has received countless misleading spam e-mail advertising EARGO.COM. After receiving the spam and being deceived into clicking on the embedded link, he visited the Defendant's website. EARGO is a hearing aid company incorporated in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com EL AL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Ticket Refund Installments -------------------------------------------------------------- Lital Dubrovitsky, writing for Y Net Global, reports that a request to certify a class action lawsuit was filed last week in Tel Aviv District Court against El Al, alleging that the company refunds passengers whose flights were canceled in installments rather than through a full and immediate refund. It should be stressed that the claim concerns cases in which the full amount had already been collected from the customer before the cancellation. The request was filed by a customer of the company who is an attorney. The applicant, represented by attorneys Nitzan Gadot and Doron Radai of the Radai-Gadot law firm, estimates the damage to the customer group at more than 2.5 million shekels. According to the request, El Al operates under an improper practice: When a flight is canceled, it refunds the payment in a number of installments identical to the number of installments in which the original purchase was made. This is done even in cases where the full amount had already been collected from the customer months before the cancellation. The applicant claims that this conduct violates the Aviation Services Law, which requires a full refund within 21 days and does not grant El Al any right to issue the refund in installments. The request claims that "this conduct causes passengers real financial harm, including by tying up their credit limit and denying them the ability to make immediate use of their money." In the individual case described, the applicant says she purchased a Sun d'Or ticket to Warsaw for her daughter and paid El Al for the ticket in two installments. She claims that although she finished paying for the ticket in January 2026, when the flight, scheduled for April, was canceled at the end of March 2026 following new directives for the operation of Ben Gurion Airport that significantly reduced activity, El Al credited her in two future installments. This was despite the fact that by the time the flight was canceled, the applicant had already paid the full price of the ticket. The applicant says she was surprised by this conduct, since the full payment for the ticket had already been paid and had been held by El Al for several months. "Why, then, once the ticket was canceled by El Al, is the refund being delayed by the company?" she asked. As part of her efforts to resolve the matter, the applicant contacted El Al to ask why the refund was being made in two installments even though the payment had already been received in full. According to her, El Al shifted responsibility and claimed that the credit card company was the one issuing the credit in installments. In effect, the applicant argues, "El Al's puzzling response was that it had made the refund in one payment, and that when a ticket charged in an installment transaction is canceled, the method of the refund is the responsibility of the credit card company." By contrast, the request says that when the applicant checked with the credit card company, she received the opposite answer and was told that El Al was the one that issued the refund in two installments. Finally, the request argues that "by continuing to hold passengers' money after their flights were canceled for a period exceeding the refund period set by law, El Al is unjustly enriching itself at their expense and effectively turning passengers whose flights were canceled into a source of financing for itself." El Al said in response: "The statement of claim in question has not yet been received by the company. Once it is received, the company will study it and respond through the legal proceeding as customary." [GN] EMERALD SOCAL LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emerald SoCal LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marco A. Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Emerald SoCal LLC, Emerald Textile Services San Diego LLC, Case No. 26STCV14419 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Emerald SoCal LLC -- https://www.emeraldus.com/ -- deliver the highest quality healthcare linen products and hospital laundry services to customers and their patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com ENCORE ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------- enCore Energy Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that on March 14, 2025, a purported shareholder of the company filed a putative federal securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. enCore Energy Corp. is a uranium development and production company focused on in-situ recovery projects in the United States, with a portfolio of advanced-stage and exploration-stage assets. The company aims to provide domestic uranium supply to support nuclear energy generation and related clean energy initiatives. ENGAGE MEDIA GROUP: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Engage Media Group LLC. The case is styled as Jordan Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Engage Media Group LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-23180-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Engage Media Group LLC -- https://engagemedia.group/ -- is a marketing agency in Sweetwater, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Fragranced Consumer Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KOVACS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, Case No. 3:26-cv-04648 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2026) asserts that Defendant had, and continues to have, a consistent policy of releasing Synthetic fragranced consumer products upon individuals as they enter Defendant's Facilities. Indeed, by the time these unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons are aware of the pervasive scents/toxins, it is simply too late: the toxins are ingested, have landed upon the skin, have entered the lungs and, thus, entered these victims' bloodstreams and targeted various organs/systems, the suit says. The Plaintiff avers that the effects of these Synthetic fragranced consumer products adversely affect all human beings but, for those with recognized disabilities such as fragrance/chemical and/or multiple chemical sensitivities, autism, and so on, the fear, apprehension and emotional distress of coming into contact with fragrance can be intense, as can be the physiological manifestations predictably attendant to the exposure. The action is brought to redress and end this prolonged pattern of unlawful conduct once and for all. The Plaintiff Classes consist of all chemically sensitive/disabled persons who have attempted to shop at, visit and/or patronize Defendant’s Facilities and been exposed, in some way, to chemical substances (including carcinogenic and/or other hazardous air pollutants, and particulate matter) and/or who have avoided such interactions with Defendant's Facilities as a result of the release/use of fragranced substances by Defendant. The Defendant is a business that maintains vehicle rental facilities,9 open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit over Data Privacy Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ethos Technologies Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that it is currently facing class action litigation and mass arbitration demands alleging violations of data privacy and communications laws, including alleged violations of wiretapping laws. In 2022, threat actors had launched an attack against its website and obtained consumer personal information from a third-party integration, the company became the subject of class action litigation. Ethos Technologies Inc. is a technology company that offers digital-first insurance products and related services. The company leverages data-driven underwriting and online tools to streamline the purchase and management of life insurance coverage for consumers. EXPEDIA GROUP: Class in Israeli Putative Suit Partially Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, May 8, 2026, that on April 17, 2026 a court issued an order partially certifying a plaintiff class in an Israeli putative class action lawsuit. Expedia Group, Inc. is a global travel platform that operates a portfolio of online travel brands providing travel products and services, including lodging, air, car rental, cruises, and vacation packages to consumers and business partners worldwide. EYEMART EXPRESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Montgomery Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EYEMART EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01514-X (N.D. Tex., May 11, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As part of its business practices and to provide services, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains patients' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients and/or customers of Defendant. On April 17, 2026, the Defendant reported to the Texas Attorney General that unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's private information stored thereon. Due to Defendant's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. Eyemart is a nationwide optical retailer with over 250 stores across 40 U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com FENDER MUSICAL: Gallardo Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under PAGA -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELA GALLARDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FENDER MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15456 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2026) is a class action suit against Fender Musical for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The suit arises from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees including all accrued vacation wages at termination, failure to reimburse and indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to pay all earned wages twice per month, and failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California as an assembler during the statutory period. The Defendant is an American manufacturer and marketer of musical instruments and amplifiers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. S. Phillip Song, Esq. Micaela de Guzman, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com psong@moonlawgroup.com mdeguzman@moonlawgroup.com FISERV INC: Lombard Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sandra Lombard, and all other similarly situated v. Fiserv Inc., Superintendant Michael Lyons, Robert Hau, Case No. 2:25-cv-01786 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03698-PKC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Fiserv -- https://www.fiserv.com/ -- is a global fintech and payments company with solutions for bankin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Sarah E. Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St-Ste 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 The Defendants are represented by: Alexander J. Willscher, Esq. Brian T. Frawley, Esq. Julia A. Malkina, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad St New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 558-4104 Email: Frawleyb@Sullcrom.Com malkinaj@sullcrom.com FLORIDA PREPAID: Lavina Suit Remanded for Dismissal w/out Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERICA LAVINA, ANDREA DARLOW, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD, a Florida agency, JOHN ROOD, in his capacity as Chairman of the Florida Prepaid College Board, ADRIA D. STARKEY, in her capacity as Vice Chair of the Florida Prepaid College Board, MARK AGUSTIN, SLATER BAYLISS, in their capacity as members of the Florida Prepaid College Board, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-11267 (11th Cir.), Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacates the district court's order dismissing with prejudice the suit as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and remands with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. The appeal requires the Eleventh Circuit to decide whether the Florida Prepaid College Board enjoys sovereign immunity from a suit to enjoin changes to its college savings plans. After Darlow and Lavina purchased college tuition savings plans for their daughters, they sued members of the Board to enjoin the application of amendments to their plan contracts as violative of the Contracts and Takings Clauses. The Florida Prepaid College Board offers savings plans for Florida residents to prepay for a child's college tuition. In exchange for a fixed amount, the plan guarantees to cover the cost of tuition at any Florida public university or community college when a beneficiary is ready to enroll. And if the beneficiary decides to attend a private or out-of-state college, the plan promises to transfer an amount not to exceed the current rates at state universities and community colleges in Florida to the college. Darlow and Lavina purchased plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006, respectively. In 2007, the Florida Legislature allowed state colleges to charge a "tuition differential" fee to "improve the quality of direct undergraduate instruction." The statute defined the "tuition differential" fee separately from "tuition," FLA STAT. Section 1009.01(1), (3), and it exempted holders of tuition plans "in effect on July 1, 2007," from paying the fee, id. Section 1009.24(16)(b)(5). The Board then amended the plan contract to specify that the new fee was not covered. More than a decade later, Darlow's and Lavina's daughters decided to attend out-of-state colleges. The Board told them it would transfer to their colleges the amount it would have paid for them to attend a Florida state college. Because their daughters were exempt from paying the tuition differential fee if they attended a Florida state college, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to that fee to their out-of-state colleges. On January 2, 2024, Darlow and Lavina brought a putative class action against members of the Board and alleged that the Board’s refusal to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee to their non-Florida state colleges violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses. They sought declaratory relief and an order "enjoining the Board from applying the tuition differential fee exemption and definition" from the 2007 statute and from "applying its changes to the Plan Contracts of Plan Beneficiaries who attend Non-Florida State Schools." The Board members moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they enjoyed sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the motion to dismiss. He concluded that the suit could proceed under Ex parte Young because it requested relief that was prospective in nature and did not seek money damages. The district court disagreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It ruled that the essence of the requested relief was to require the Board to pay the value of the tuition differential fee, which amounted to a refund to be paid by the State that is precluded by the Eleventh Amendment. Because the requested relief would require specific performance of a contract, the Eleventh Circuit agrees that sovereign immunity bars the suit. Judge Pryor concludes that the plan purchasers' suit may not proceed under Ex parte Young because it seeks relief that amounts to specific performance of a contract to which the State was a party. As the plan purchasers explain in their brief, they seek the benefit of their bargain by requiring state officials to interpret and enforce their future contractual benefits lawfully. And that request can only be understood as a request for specific performance. Although the district court correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, Judge Pryor opines that it erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit has explained that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and should be entered without prejudice. When a district court lacks jurisdiction but dismisses with prejudice, it remands so that the district court can reenter its dismissal order without prejudice. For these reasons, the order is vacated and remanded for the district court to dismiss without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/f7drtrt FLUOR CORP: Multiple Derivative Actions Filed --------------------------------------------- Fluor Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that in October 2025, a purported shareholders' derivative action was filed against current and former members of the company Board of Directors, as well as certain current and former executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas where Fluor is also named as a nominal defendant Additionally, in October 2025, a purported shareholders' derivative action was filed against current and former members of the company's Board of Directors, as well as certain current and former executives, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Fluor is also named as a nominal defendant in the action. Fluor Corp. is a global engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance company serving clients in the energy, infrastructure, mining, and government sectors. Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Fluor provides project management and turnkey solutions for complex capital projects worldwide. FLY FISH: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fly Fish Food, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05643 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Website https://www.flyfishfood.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law FOOD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Bid in Enguerra Suit Due July 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Enguerra, et al., v. Food Systems Unlimited, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00182 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Oral argument on the motion for class certification is scheduled for July 21, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Food Systems owns and operates a chain of restaurants.[CC] FOODSCIENCE LLC: Ramirez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOODSCIENCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05197 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.vetriscience.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Foodscience, LLC provides custom formulation, private label solutions, research and development, and manages manufacturing and supply chain for health products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FORD MOTOR: Class Certification Bid in Miller Suit Due June 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA MILLER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order adopting the Parties' stipulation to modify the scheduling order and file consolidated briefing in part: The court modifies the case schedule and sets a briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' anticipated motions for class certification as follows: -- Expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 29, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs' motions for class certification shall be filed no later than June 22, 2026 -- The Defendant's oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification shall be filed no later than July 15, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs' replies, if any, shall be filed no later than July 29, 2026; All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged; -- The parties' request to file consolidated and extended briefing with respect to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motions for class certification is denied without prejudice; and -- The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket this order in 2:20-cv-01796-DADCKD and 2:24-CV-02231-DAD-CKD. The parties do not explain how consolidation of the class certification briefing would save time and effort, nor do they address whether consolidation would produce any inconvenience, delay, or expense. Therefore, the court will decline to grant the parties' request to file consolidated class certification briefing. The court will deny the parties' request for extended briefing because the court is denying the parties' request to file consolidated briefing. The court will consider future requests regarding extended briefing should the parties provide sufficient explanation for such requests. The Defendant is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kroSUx at no extra charge.[CC] FORTINET INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------- Fortinet, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, May 8, 2026, that it is currently facing consolidated actions over its share sale. On September 22, 2025, a securities class action was filed against the company, its chief executive officer, its chief technology officer, its current chief financial officer, and its former chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Fortinet, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-08037. On October 16, 2025, a separate securities class action was filed against the company, its chief executive officer, its current chief financial officer, and its former chief financial officer in the same court, captioned "State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer v. Fortinet, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-08888. That these suits are brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the company's common stock between November 8, 2024 through August 6, 2025. The complaints allege that defendants made false or misleading statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including regarding the 2026 firewall refresh cycle, and purport to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The court subsequently consolidated these actions under a new caption, "In re Fortinet, Inc. Securities Litigation," Lead Case No. 3:25-cv-08037 and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2026, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act against the company's chief executive officer, chief technology officer, current chief financial officer, and former chief financial officer relating to the same events and circumstances alleged in the initial complaints, and adds a Section 10(b) claim against the company's head of investor relations. It seeks damages, attorneys fees and costs, and other relief that the court may deem appropriate, and that the time to respond to the consolidated amended complaint has not yet passed. Additionally, on October 8, 2025, plaintiff Jack Pittrof filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the Northern District of California, captioned "Pittrof v. Xie, et al.," Case No. 3:2025-cv-08592. The complaint alleges claims based on events similar to those in the securities class action and asserts causes of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Separately, on November 5, 2025, plaintiff Michael J. Marrinan filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Marrinan v. Xie, et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-09546. It alleges claims based on events similar to those in the securities class action and asserts causes of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of California Corporations Code 24400, 25500, et seq., and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Additionally, on November 6, 2025, plaintiff Bryan Foster filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the Northern District of California, captioned "Foster v. Xie, et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-09611. The Foster complaint alleges claims based on events similar to those in the securities class action and asserts causes of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and for contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act. Additionally, on December 2, 2025, plaintiff LR Trust filed a stockholder derivative complaint against the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the Northern District of California, captioned "LR Trust v. Xie, et al.," Case No. 3:25-cv-10350. It alleges claims based on events similar to those in the securities class action and asserts causes of action against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, aiding and abetting, violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and for contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act. The derivative actions seek damages, disgorgement, remedial actions, restitution, and attorneys fees and costs. These have been consolidated under a new caption, "In re Fortinet, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," Lead Case No. 3:2025-cv-08592. On April 2, 2026, the court stayed all proceedings in the latter pending the final resolution of the Consolidated Securities Class Action. Fortinet, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that develops and sells network security solutions, including firewalls, intrusion prevention systems, and secure networking products. The company serves enterprises, service providers, and government entities worldwide with integrated, automated cybersecurity platforms. FRANCHISE GROWTH: Guthrie Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franchise Growth Company, LLC. The case is styled as Cole Guthrie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Franchise Growth Company, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00286-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. FranGrowth -- https://www.frangrowth.co/ -- is a franchise development firm that partners with brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com FREEPORT, NY: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to June 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Whaley et al., v. The Village of Freeport et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02720-DG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting a 30-day extension of time to submit their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action -- extending the time for the Defendants to respond from May 15, 2026, to on or before June 15, 2026, -- extending the Plaintiffs' time to submit their reply from May 29, 2026 to on or before June 29, 2026 and -- adjourning the Oral Argument on same from June 23, 2026 to a date and time that is convenient to the Court. Freeport is a village in the town of Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York state. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ERF9VF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gabriella S. Amato, Esq. HARRIS BEACH MURTHA CULLINA PLLC The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 880-8484 Facsimile: (516) 880-8483 E-mail: gamato@harrisbeachmurtha.com FRISKA LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRISKA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03733 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.getfriska.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Friska, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Crabtree Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontwave Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Jacob Crabtree, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frontwave Credit Union, Pacific Marine Credit Union, Case No. 3:26-cv-02838-DMS-MMP (S.D. Cal., May 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Frontwave Credit Union -- https://www.frontwavecu.com/ -- is a member-owned credit union headquartered in Oceanside, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com GAP INC: Unlawfully Collects Tariff Related Fees, Debenedictis Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN DEBENEDICTIS, individually, And on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GAP, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01454 (D. Nev., May 12, 2026) contends that despite lacking lawful authority, Defendant charged, collected, and retained tariff related fees from Plaintiff and Class members via its increased prices. According to the complaint, the Defendant was not authorized by contract, statute, or law to charge or retain unlawful tariff-related fees. The Plaintiff and Class members paid tariff-inflated prices to Defendant, but Defendant now seeks to retain both the consumer pass-through and any government refund of the same unlawful tariff charges. The Defendant's products sold in the United States are primarily manufactured in Asia, with significant production occurring in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Cambodia. Most of Defendant's products sold in the United States are imported. Due to its high reliance on imports, Defendant is heavily affected by tariffs. In or around February 2025, President Donald Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, primarily targeting drug trafficking and illegal immigration. He later expanded these IEEPA-based tariffs to many other nations to combat trade deficits. Based on this declaration, President Trump invoked IEEPA to announce tariffs of at least 10% on imports from almost all U.S. trading partners. Some reported rates reached 30% (20% IEEPA tariff and 10% country-specific tariff) on all Chinese goods. Plaintiff Debenedictis is a resident citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada. The Plaintiff has purchased goods from Defendant that were imported from countries subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The purchase price for the goods that Plaintiff Debenedictis purchased from Defendant was increased to account for the tariffs imposed on those products. Plaintiff Debenedictis would not have paid the increased price if Defendant had not passed the cost of the IEEPA tariffs on to consumers, the suit contends. The Defendant is an American multinational clothing and accessories retailer founded in 1969 by Donald Fisher and Doris F. Fisher. The Defendant is a leading global specialty retailer offering clothing, accessories, and personal care products for men, women, children, and babies under the Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, and Athleta brand names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. 432 Ridge Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 324-1500 E-mail: matt@mattsharplaw.com - and - Andre Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY| ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: Andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com GOOD SPORTSMAN: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Good Sportsman Marketing, L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-05641 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Website https://www.northlandtackle.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law GRINDR INC: Proposed Settlement for Court OK -------------------------------------------- Grindr Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that in February 2025, the parties in a data privacy dispute reached a settlement. In December 2020, Grindr LLC was named in a statement of claim and petition for certification of a class action in the Israeli Central District Court. The statement of claims generally alleges that Grindr LLC violated users' privacy by sharing information with third parties without their explicit consent and seeks various forms of monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, in addition to certification as a class action. After various filings, the parties reached a settlement in February 2025, which was approved by the court in July 2025. In February 2026, the Israeli Attorney General submitted objections to the court regarding the proposed settlement. Grindr submitted its response to the Attorney General's position in April 2026. As of May 5, 2026, the court has not yet ruled on the proposed settlement. Grindr Inc. operates a global online social networking and dating platform primarily serving the LGBTQ+ community, offering location-based services and related digital products. The company generates revenue mainly through subscriptions, in-app purchases and advertising. GRINNELL COLLEGE: Intercepts Website Users' Data, Hanfling Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EYAL HANFLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRINNELL COLLEGE, Case No. 4:26-cv-00213-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, May 14, 2026) contends that Grinnell's Cookie Banner deceives users by representing that cookies would only be set if users clicked on the "I Agree" button, while the Website: (1) places Tracking Tools on users' browsers, allowing Tracking Entities to intercept users' communications with the Website before users have the opportunity to provide affirmative consent through the Cookie Banner, and (2) continues to use Tracking Tools that intercept and transmit Users' information to Tracking Entities despite the absence of any meaningful assent by users to the tracking technologies. Defendant Grinnell operates a website, https://www.grinnell.edu/, through which users may explore information about the college's academic programs, admissions process, campus life, faculty, and student resources; apply for admission and financial aid; create and manage user accounts through college-related portals; access educational, administrative, and support services; and engage with college news, events, and other institutional offerings. Like many modern websites, the Website displays the cookie banner purporting to give users meaningful control over what data the Website shares with third parties. The Defendant's assurances are false, the suit says. The Website begins placing and transmitting cookies and other third-party tracking technologies capable of intercepting and transmitting users' data, including communications, the moment users visit the Website, before they can interact with the Cookie Banner. Grinnell is a private liberal arts college located in Grinnell, Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com GRUBHUB INC: Judge OKs 1-Hour Filing Extension in "Bensimon" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Adam Bensimon et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Grubhub Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., and Postmates Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03000-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a stipulated one-hour nunc pro tunc extension of Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Postmates LLC's class certification filing deadline. Defendants' oppositions to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, expert reports, and Daubert motions were due May 1, 2026. Uber and Postmates timely filed their motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. J. Douglas Zona, the supporting memorandum of law, the supporting declaration of Jeffrey Cao, and their opposition to class certification. However, counsel encountered a CM/ECF technical error that caused a timeout while uploading the Declaration of Stacey K. Grigsby and its 124 exhibits. Counsel resolved the issue by filing the declaration in three parts but could not complete the upload until approximately 12:30 a.m. on May 2, 2026. The Court therefore extended the deadline nunc pro tunc to 1:00 a.m. on May 2, 2026. The extension does not affect any remaining deadlines. A copy of the Joint Motion for Stipulation is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTlFyj from PacerMonitor.com H.B.D.DIST INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. H.B.D.DIST. INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03952 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.hustlebutter.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 1, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Hustle Butter Deluxe Tattoo Balm from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Hustle Butter Deluxe Tattoo Balm, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: tattoo and skincare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Hustle Butter Deluxe Tattoo Balm. Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Hustle Butter Deluxe Tattoo Balm but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented her from doing so. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Max Sweets online retail store, as well as the Max Sweets interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HASPEL LLC: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Haspel, L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-05649 (N.D., Ill. May 15, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.haspel.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. Accordingly, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Haspel's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Just Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com HEAT CARIBBEAN: Ramales-Salas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- German Ramales-Salas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HEAT CARIBBEAN KITCHEN AND LOUNGE INC., SUNIL RANGILA, and WENDELLA F. RAMDAS, Case No. 1:26-cv-02708 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and statutory damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. During this period, Plaintiff was not paid proper ove1iime compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was paid at the rate of $17 per hour straight time for all hours worked and worked 48 hours per week, and sometimes in excess thereof. Work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one half as required by state and federal law. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with weekly wage statements/pay stubs setting forth Plaintiffs hours worked, gross wages, deductions, and net wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work at the Restaurant as a non-exempt dishwasher, porter, food preparer/kitchen worker, and stock person from September 2019 through February 15, 2026. Heat Caribbean Kitchen and Lounge Inc., owns and operates a restaurant doing business as "Heat Caribbean Kitchen and Lounge."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com HIGHRIDGE MEDICAL: Miller Seeks Sales Support Reps' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA MILLER, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHRIDGE MEDICAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02026 (D. Colo., May 11, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Highridge Medical under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Highridge pays Plaintiff Miller and the other employees by the hour, plus various forms of additional remuneration on top of the workers' base hourly rates of pay. But Highridge does not pay them for all overtime wages owed under the FLSA when they work over 40 hours in a workweek. Instead, Highridge excludes various forms of compensation from Plaintiff Miller's and the hourly employees' regular rates of pay, such as non-discretionary bonuses an on-call premium pay, and other similar categories of remuneration. Because of Highridge's failure to pay all wages (including straight time wages, overtime wages, double time wages, and premium pay) owed, Miller and the other California Plaintiffs do not receive all wages owed during employment, says the suit. Further, Highridge's illegal employment practices violate California's Unfair Competition Law by practicing, employing, and utilizing the employment practices by knowingly denying the hourly employees: (1) overtime wages; (2) straight time wages; and (3) compliant meal and rest periods and associated penalty pay. Plaintiff Miller was employed by the Defendant as a sales support representative in Costa Mesa, California from approximately July 2022 to January 2026. Highridge Medical, LLC sells medical devices throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-9221 Facsimile: (310) 564-4093 E-mail: william@laurelemploymentlaw.com HOME ELEGANCE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Ramirez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME ELEGANCE FURNITURE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05195 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.homeeleganceusa.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Home Elegance Furniture Limited Liability Company is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 HV GLOBAL: Ramsey FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as LILIYA RAMSEY; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; MVW SERVICES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV000995, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the Monterey County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-04197 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff has asserts claims for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. HV Global Management Corporation is a subsidiary of Marriott Vacation Ownership.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq. J. Scott Carr, Esq. Paul G. Sherman, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: jozmer@kcozlaw.com scarr@kcozlaw.com psherman@kcozlaw.com IGLOO PRODUCTS: Court Won't Reverse "Harms" Class Standing Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Joe Lieber, Karen Elizabeth Harms, and Darin Strauss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Igloo Products Corp., Defendant, Case No. 25-CV-488 (AMD)(LKE) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the defendant's motion for reconsideration of a prior ruling on class standing. The underlying putative class action alleges that the defendant made false and misleading representations constituting deceptive and unfair trade practices under New York General Business Law Section 349, et seq., and false advertising under New York General Business Law Section 350, et seq. The defendant sought reconsideration of Judge Allyne Ross's February 2, 2026 order, which held that the named plaintiffs have standing at the pleading stage to bring class claims related to products they did not purchase, on the ground that those products carried the same allegedly deceptive "Made in the USA" or "recycled content" representations. Judge Donnelly found that the defendant identified no intervening change of controlling law, new evidence, or clear error, and was instead seeking to relitigate issues already decided. The motion was denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WrV9G1 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Igloo Products Corp. is represented by: Chad Kurtz, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR Tel: 202-463-2521 Email: ckurtz@cozen.com John Alfred Bertino, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR Tel: 202-912-4881 Email: jbertino@cozen.com Michael Puretz, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR Tel: 954-226-4696 Email: mpuretz@cozen.com Richard Fama, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR Tel: 212-908-1229 Email: rfama@cozen.com Erica W. Rutner, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR Tel: 561-245-6120 Email: erutner@cozen.com Kristen A. Bennett, Esq. MOORE & LEE, LLP Tel: 703-506-2050 Email: k.bennett@mooreandlee.com Plaintiffs Joe Lieber and Karen Elizabeth Harms are represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. ABIRI LAW, PC Tel: 949-459-2133 Email: rabiri@abirilaw.com IMMUTEP LIMITED: Dhaenens Sued Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- YVES DHAENENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMMUTEP LIMITED; MARC VOIGT; FREDERIC TRIEBEL; and STEPHEN WINCKELS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03705 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026) is a a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Immutep American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between March 24, 2025 and March 12, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, when Immutep issued a press release announcing that the Independent Data Monitoring (IDMC) for the TACTI-004 Phase III study recommended that the trial be discontinued following a planned interim futility analysis. Further, based on its review of the available safety and efficacy data, the IDMC recommended that the trial be discontinued for futility. The price of Immutep's ADRs declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $2.76 per share on March 12, 2026, Immutep's stock price fell to $0.48 per share on March 13, 2026, a decline of about 83%, says the suit. Immutep Limited operates as a biotechnology company. The Company focuses on developing novel immunotherapy treatments for cancer and autoimmune disease. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Faces Mockert Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sam Mockert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02567-JWB-JFD (D. Minn., May 11, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonable and necessary data security practices to protect private information in Instructure's custody and prevent future data breaches. On May 7, 2026, an unauthorized third party was able to gain access to Instructure's Canvas platform. Canvas is a web-based, learning-management platform. The cybercriminals were able to access personally identifiable information by exploiting an issue related to Instructure's Free-For-Teacher accounts. When Instructure's customers -- schools and school districts -- utilize its products, Instructure gains access to the data of the students and staff who attend and work at those schools, including their private information. Because it is foreseeable that exposure of private information to cybercriminals will result in harm to the affected individuals, Instructure has a duty to use reasonable and necessary data security practices to protect the private, sensitive, and personal information that it stores. Instead, as a direct and proximate result of Instructure's failure to employ reasonable and necessary data security practices, Plaintiff and Class Members' private information is known to cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, therefore brings claims for (i) negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) breach of implied contract; (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; (v) invasion of privacy; (vi) declaratory judgement; and (vii) unjust enrichment. Instructure, Inc. is an education technology company that offers solutions for learning, assessment, and credentialing -- including its Canvas, Mastery, and Parchment products -- as well as specialized services primarily to schools and school districts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. Adam J. Kolb, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com akolb@gustafsongluek.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McFadden Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALLYSON MCFADDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00440 (D. Utah, May 14, 2026) is class action lawsuit against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information, culminating in massive and preventable data breaches. As a result of the Defendant's negligence and deficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant’s inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. As part of its business practices and to provide educational services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains customers’ PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Accordingly, the Defendant Instructure has suffered at least two Data Breaches, one on April 29, 2026, and another on May 7, 2026. Instructure currently identifies issues with "Free-For-Teacher" accounts as being the exploit utilized to perpetrate the April and May Data Breaches. Ms. McFadden is an individual domiciled in Oklahoma. Plaintiff McFadden is a current student at Oklahoma State University, which utilizes Canvas and sent students and staff a notice that the Defendant was affected by a Data Breach. Instructure maintains and operates Canvas, which is used by learning institutions, educators, and students to access and manage online course learning materials and communicate about skill development and learning achievements.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave The Village, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - Charles H. Thronson, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 S. Main, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 E-mail: cthronson@parsonsbehle.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03731 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.interactivebrokers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Interactive Brokers LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JANUS HENDERSON: Settlement Reached in Schissler ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Janus Henderson Group PLC disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that is has agreed to settle a class action complaint, captioned "Schissler v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado filed on September 9, 2022. The defendants named in the complaint are Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc. (Janus US Holdings) and the Advisory Committee to the Janus 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan that invested in Janus Henderson funds on or after September 9, 2016. On January 10, 2023, an amended complaint was filed against the same defendants, naming two additional plaintiffs, Karly Sissel and Derrick Hittson. It alleges that for the period since September 9, 2016, among other things, the defendants breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by selecting higher-cost Janus Henderson funds over less expensive investment options, retaining Janus Henderson funds despite their alleged underperformance, and failing to consider actively managed funds outside of Janus Henderson to add as investment options. The amended complaint also alleges that Janus US Holdings failed to monitor the Advisory Committee with respect to the foregoing. It seeks various declaratory, equitable and monetary relief in unspecified amounts. On January 22, 2024, the district court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Janus US Holdings' motion to dismiss. The parties thereafter conducted fact and expert discovery. Fact and expert discovery was completed on May 27, 2025. In addition, on July 11, 2025, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all of the claims asserted in the complaint, as well as a motion to exclude certain opinions offered by the plaintiffs' experts. Also on July 11, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to one element of their fiduciary duty claim, and a motion to exclude certain opinions offered by the defendants' damages expert. Those motions have been fully briefed, but no decision has been issued. On Feb. 18, 2026, and without admitting any liability, fault or wrongdoing, Janus US Holdings reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On Feb. 24, 2026, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the district court, and the proposed settlement remains subject to court approval. Janus Henderson Group PLC is a global active asset manager offering investment solutions across equities, fixed income, multi-asset and alternative strategies for individual, intermediary and institutional investors worldwide. The company is headquartered in London and operates through a network of offices across North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. JOINT CORP: Faces Several Class Actions in California ----------------------------------------------------- Joint Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, May 8, 2026, that in 2025 three cases were consolidated into one class action lawsuit that has not yet been certified, six individual cases related to each other, and two unrelated individual cases, all filed against the company. The initial lawsuit was filed against the company on June 6, 2024, with the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County. The lawsuits allege, among other claims, an invasion of privacy, negligence, emotional distress, sexual harassment, unlawful recording, failure to provide a safe environment and trespass on person at one of its company-owned or managed clinics. The lawsuits are currently in discovery and trial is scheduled to begin in early 2027. Joint Corp is a franchisor and operator of chiropractic clinics under "The Joint Chiropractic" brand, providing routine and affordable chiropractic care through company-owned and franchised locations across the United States. KALSHI INC: Roberts Sues to Recover Losses from Illegal Sports Bets ------------------------------------------------------------------- DONOVAN ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALSHI, INC.; KALSHIEX LLC; KALSHI KLEAR, INC.; KALSHI KLEAR LLC; KALSHI TRADING LLC; SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLP; and SUSQUEHANNA GOVERNMENT PRODUCTS, LLLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-336-GNS (W.D. Ky., May 11, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover the losses of Kentucky residents who have participated in illegal gambling on the website Kalshi.com pursuant to the state's gambling loss recovery statute, the Kentucky Revised Statutes. Defendants operate the website Kalshi.com which is an interactive website available continuously throughout Kentucky. Unlike passive websites, Kalshi.com requires users to create accounts, invites them to contact Kalshi directly through the website, allows users to place bets on events including sports, and sends money to users when they withdraw money. Kalshi also uses geo-targeted digital advertisements, banner ads, and search engine optimization to specifically target Kentucky residents. Kalshi knowingly accepts payments from Kentucky bank accounts and debit/credit cards to place wagers on its website. When users owe money on the site, it contacts them directly in their home state, including in Kentucky. Moreover, Kalshi operates an online "prediction market" accessible in Kentucky, whereby Kentucky residents can buy and sell "event contracts" related to, among other things, sporting outcomes. Defendants attempt to cleverly disguise these contracts as unique securities and/or commodities purportedly regulated by the Commodities Future Trading Commission; these event contracts are nothing more than thinly veiled illegal wagers based on the outcome of specific future events. Not only can Kentucky residents bet on who will win the game, but Kalshi also provides other traditional sports gambling offerings, such as the point spread, total combined points and prop bets like how many yards or touchdowns a player may have. Kalshi claims its offerings are legal not because it complies (or makes any attempt to comply) with Kentucky law on sports betting, but because they are merely "futures" or "swaps" or "options" intended to hedge financial risks. But it is clear that these are simply bets on what will occur in the sporting event. Kalshi has admitted that these sports contracts "serve no commercial purpose at all." Multiple courts have rejected Kalshi's wordplay and found that the bets on the website constitute gambling, asserts the complaint. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff seeks for each class member recovery of the amount lost through wagers on Kalshi's website or app within the six months preceding the filing of this complaint minus any amounts that player was actually paid back as a result of winnings, pursuant to the Kentucky Revised Statutes. Plaintiff Donovan Roberts is an adult resident citizen of Jefferson County, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Rhoads, Esq. RHOADS & RHOADS PSC 115 East Second Street P.O. Box 2023 Owensboro, KY 42302-2023 Telephone: 270-683-4600 Facsimile: 270-683-1653 E-mail: chris@rhoadsandrhoads.com - and - Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-930-9900 Facsimile: 205-930-9989 E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com KATIE LOXTON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Katie Loxton Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00666 (N.D. Ind., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://katieloxton.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the Website. Thus, Defendant excludes the blind and visually impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Website is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view umbrellas and travel accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law KESTREL GROUP: Discovery in Shareholder Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Kestrel Group Ltd. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that discovery is now proceeding in a shareholder action with respect to claims for securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals Third Circuit denied defendants' petition for rehearing last September 16, 2025. On February 11, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden Holdings, Ltd., Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and on February 19, 2020, the court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) for control person liability, arising in large part from allegations that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with reinsurance provided to AmTrust. Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden's representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden's common stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, Maiden's stock price fell, causing plaintiffs to incur losses. On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all defendants and on August 6, 2021, the court issued an order denying, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering plaintiffs to file a shorter amended complaint no later than August 20, 2021, and permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis. In addition, on Feb. 7, 2023, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of its decision denying plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 2021 ruling on discovery. On May 26, 2023, Maiden filed a renewed motion to dismiss the second amended complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On Dec. 19, 2023, the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to Maiden and individual defendants Arturo Raschbaum, Karen Schmitt, and John Marshaleck, holding that the factual record failed to support, as a matter of law, plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants had made false statements regarding Maiden's loss reserves, and also dismissed plaintiffs' claims that the individual defendants were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for any such alleged false statements. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 20, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's order granting summary judgment to Maiden and individual defendants Arturo Raschbaum, Karen Schmitt, and John Marshaleck, disagreeing with the District Court's holding that the current case record required judgment for Maiden, as a matter of law, on the issue of whether Maiden's loss reserves were misleading. The court explained further that it was not issuing a ruling on the element of scienter and therefore vacated the opinion of the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to permit plaintiffs to pursue discovery with respect to their claims for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Third Circuit denied defendants' petition for rehearing on September 16, 2025. Kestrel Group Ltd is an investment holding and advisory company; its filings often include disclosures regarding litigation and regulatory matters involving portfolio or related entities. KINGSFORD PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. THE KINGSFORD PRODUCTS COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-03905 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.kingsford.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Kingsford Yeti Tundra Hard Cooler from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Kingsford Yeti Tundra Hard Cooler, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: outdoor and grilling products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Kingsford Yeti Tundra Hard Cooler. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Kingsford Yeti Tundra Hard Cooler but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so. The Defendant operates the Kingsford online retail store, as well as the Kingsford interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KODIAK LABOR: Watson Files Suit Over FCRA Breach ------------------------------------------------ LEON WATSON, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KODIAK LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00407 (E.D. Va., May 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to provide Plaintiff with a copy of a consumer report and a summary of rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") prior to taking adverse employment action. The complaint relates that in early April 2025, Plaintiff applied online for employment with Defendant in response to a job posting on Roadtechs.com for a contractor placement in Virginia. Shortly after submitting his application, Plaintiff completed an initial phone screening conducted by Defendant's regional recruiter. On April 3, 2025, Defendant sent Plaintiff an email directing him to complete a drug screen request form and appear for a drug screen test the following day. On April 9, 2025, Defendant emailed Plaintiff to notify him of a new task assigned to him in Defendant's HR Center Software. Through that notification, Defendant required Plaintiff to complete several documents, including a background screening questionnaire. The Plaintiff also authorized Defendant to procure a consumer report for employment purposes and per the requirements of the FCRA. Plaintiff completed the required drug screen on or about April 14, 2025. According to the complaint, OneSource, a consumer reporting agency, completed the consumer report regarding Plaintiff on April 16, 2025. The Consumer Report inaccurately reported criminal history information related to Plaintiff. On April 17, 2025, OneSource emailed Plaintiff, directing him to review a notice by clicking on an accompanying link. The April 17 email included an Adverse Action Notice, which notified Plaintiff that Defendant had taken adverse employment action against him based on information in the Consumer Report. The complaint alleges that the Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Consumer Report or a Summary of Rights under the FCRA prior to the April 17 email. Defendant engaged in no further communications with Plaintiff and he understood that Defendant's decision not to allow him to further pursue a job opportunity was final. However, Defendant failed to provide a copy of the Consumer Report to Plaintiff prior to taking adverse employment action. Defendant had paid OneSource a fee for the Consumer Report. The Plaintiff was unaware the FCRA provided a right to receive a copy of the Consumer Report before the adverse action was taken by Defendant. Plaintiff was also confused as to whether the information included in the Consumer Report could be challenged. As a result, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity and ability to contest, correct, or explain the information in the Consumer Report before suffering the adverse action, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA on behalf of all members of the Proposed Class. Plaintiff Leon Watson was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Defendant Kodiak Labor Solutions, LLC, is engaged in the business of construction staffing throughout the country, including Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com E-mail: mark@clalegal.com E-mail: craig@clalegal.com - and - Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com KROGER CO: Cherepennikova FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Yulia Cherepennikova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kroger, Co., Quality Food Centers, Inc., Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. doing business as: Quality Food Centers, Case No. 2:26-cv-00724 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00456-SJD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Kroger Co. -- https://www.thekrogerco.com/ -- is an American retail corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGA, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616-4000 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: Mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Kristopher A. Bonham, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA (PLANTATION) 8151 Peters Rd, Ste 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (480) 291-2987 Email: kbonham@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Anna G. Lloid, Esq. GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP (SPOKANE) 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 614 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (360) 901-9652 Fax: (206) 467-6292 Email: alloid@gordontilden.com - and - Michael P. Brown, Esq. GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP 600 University St., Ste. 2915 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 467-6477 Fax: (206) 467-6292 Email: mbrown@gordontilden.com LAMB WESTON: Court Tosses Claims in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as OFI Invest Asset Management, on behalf of OFI Invest Actions Amerique, and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., Thomas P. Werner, and Bernadette M. Madarieta, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00282-DCN (D. Idaho), Judge David C. Nye of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss a proposed securities fraud class action complaint. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is the largest U.S. producer and distributor of frozen potato products. As part of its modernization effort, the company implemented a new Enterprise Resource Planning software system in late 2023. The ERP's flaws led to inventory visibility problems resulting in millions of dollars in missed orders and lost business. Plaintiffs allege Defendants fraudulently misrepresented the ERP rollout before and after it became operational. The court found that statements made by Werner and Madarieta prior to the ERP's November 27, 2023 launch were inactionable puffery. Werner's statements -- that the ERP was part of a broader project to strengthen operational infrastructure and that Lamb Weston's modernization efforts remained on track -- were too vague to give a reasonable investor any specific impressions of fact. The motion was therefore granted as to all pre-launch statements. The court found Madarieta's January 4, 2024 earnings call statements actionable. Her characterization of the disruptions as the usual bumps associated with large-scale projects and her description of inventory challenges as short-term and limited to the period immediately following the cutover could give a reasonable investor the misleading impression that ERP-related difficulties were discountable and nearly resolved. By the end of December 2023, Lamb Weston was shipping barely half of outstanding customer orders. The January 4 Form 10-Q risk disclosure, which stated there had been no material changes to previously disclosed risk factors, was also found actionable, as anticipated risks had matured into present harms. Werner's January 4 statement predicting volume improvement was dismissed as forward-looking puffery protected by the PSLRA safe harbor. The court sustained Plaintiffs' April 4, 2024 claims. Order fulfillment rates dropped from 96-99% to approximately 70% for a period of months, and customer complaints continued for six full months following launch. Defendants' April 4 statements predicting recovery of lost business were dismissed as forward-looking statements entitled to safe-harbor protection. The court dismissed the competition and pricing fraud allegations, finding Plaintiffs failed to plead facts raising a plausible inference of collusive agreement with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. On scienter, the court found the holistic allegations raised a strong inference of deliberate recklessness as to post-launch statements. Madarieta attended every daily tracker meeting, personally refused to approve additional training resources before launch, and allegedly rewrote presentations to downplay ERP problems. Werner was briefed multiple times on technical deficiencies. Accordingly, the motion was denied in part as to post-launch statements. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend within 30 days. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HIJ6uM from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., Thomas P. Werner, and Bernadette M. Madarieta are represented by: Connor F. Lang, Esq. JONES DAY - CLEVELAND Email: clang@jonesday.com Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq. JONES DAY Email: mpduffy@jonesday.com Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. JONES DAY Email: gjritts@jonesday.com Tyler J. Anderson, Esq. HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP Email: tanderson@hawleytroxell.com Lynnette Michele Davis, Esq. HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY Email: ldavis@hawleytroxell.com Plaintiffs OFI Invest Asset Management and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System are represented by: Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA Email: cmoyna@gelaw.com Daniel L. Berger, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA Email: dberger@gelaw.com Scott McKay, Esq. NEVIN, BENJAMIN & MCKAY LLP Email: smckay@nbmlaw.com Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com Salvatore Graziano, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: salvatore@blbglaw.com James Harrod, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: jim.harrod@blbglaw.com Katherine Sinderson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: katiem@blbglaw.com Jeroen Van Kwawegen, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: jeroen@blbglaw.com Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: avi@blbglaw.com Mathews Ramos de Carvalho, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: mathews.decarvalho@blbglaw.com Alexander McRae Noble, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: alexander.noble@blbglaw.com Plaintiff Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund is represented by: Nathan Pittman, Esq. NEVIN, BENJAMIN & MCKAY LLP Email: npittman@nbmlaw.com Scott McKay, Esq. NEVIN, BENJAMIN & MCKAY LLP Email: smckay@nbmlaw.com Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Email: avi@blbglaw.com Kathryn A. Hettler, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP Email: kh@hrsclaw.com Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com Plaintiff West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund is represented by: Jaren Nichole Wieland, Esq. MOONEY WIELAND WARREN Email: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.com Movants International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension Fund, Macomb County Employees Retirement System, Macomb County Intermediate Retirees Medical Benefits Trust, and Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund are represented by: Wyatt Benton Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON MAY Email: wbj@johnsonmaylaw.com LAST BRAND INC: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Allysa Andrews, Seamus Pugh, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Last Brand, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01152 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04102-SK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Last Brand Inc. delivers high-quality, ethically sourced fashion and home goods through efficient import and direct-to-consumer services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine Marie Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L. Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Patrick John Curran, Jr., Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006-3401 Phone: (202) 973-4200 Fax: (202) 973-4499 Email: patcurran@dwt.com LEMONADE INC: Song Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as WENDONG SONG and JOHN DEVITO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEMONADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CGC-26-635208, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04207 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts Defendant's violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Unfair Competition Law as well as breach of contract. Lemonade, Inc. offers renters, homeowners, car, pet, and life insurance.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joshua Briones, Esq. Jacob Hernandez, Esq. BRIONES PC 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1840 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (858) 243-3819 E-mail: joshua@brionespc.com jacob@brionespc.com LIFELINE PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brown Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willie Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifeline Professional Counseling Services, Inc. d/b/a Lifeline PCS, Case No. 2:26-cv-03322-CDB (D. Ariz., May 12, 2026) arises from the Defendant Lifeline's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in or about April 2026 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals. Plaintiff Brown brings this action against Defendant Lifeline to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief from Defendant. Lifeline is a behavioral and mental health provider that delivers counseling, therapy, and addiction treatment services and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com LOBYS HOGS: Faces Hunter Employment Suit Over Age Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- LISA HUNTER and BARBARA PHIPPS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LOBYS HOGS 2730 LLC, LOBY'S BAR & GRILLE LLC, LOBY'S IRISH, LLC and RTJA HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-01159 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of, and applicants for employment with, Defendants, who have been subjected to a pattern and practice of age discrimination by Defendants, the operators of three "Loby's" restaurant locations in Stark County, Ohio. Accordingly, the Defendants operate Loby's restaurants that hire predominantly young, female servers in revealing attire, and have systematically refused to hire qualified applicants age 40 or older, demoted and terminated employees age forty or older, and subjected employees age 40 or older to age-related comments and harassment, all in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Ohio Revised Code. The Plaintiffs were over the age of 40 and is a member of the class of persons protected by the ADEA and R.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean H. Sobel, Esq. SOBEL LAW SOLUTIONS, LLC 1468 West 9th Street, Suite 100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 282-9776 E-mail: sobel@sobellawsolutions.com - and - Adam Lubow, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP, LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 E-mail: alubow@ohlaborlaw.com rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com LOVISA AMERICA: Parties Seek OK of Bid for Distribution Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE JALBERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LOVISA AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00466-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and approving and authorizing the distribution of Court-supervised notice to the following group of individuals via First Class. U.S. mail and email, defined as: "All current and former Store Managers ("SMs") who work or worked for the Defendant within the United States at any time since July 1, 2022 (the "Collective")." The Plaintiff brought this action for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant offers a diverse range of accessories including earrings, necklaces, rings, and bracelets. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kenSrt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614)221-4221 Facsimile: (614)744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy C. Dougherty, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 898-0050 Facsimile: (513) 898-0051 E-mail: Timothy.dougherty@jacksonlewis.com LPC SURVIVAL: Gaines Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN GAINES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. LPC SURVIVAL, LTD D/B/A US BERKEY FILTERS, Case No. 2:25-cv-09291-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its ex parte application to continue the current deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification from June 9, 2026, up to and including Sept. 9, 2026, and also extend the mediation deadline from June 1, 2026, to 30 days after the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order setting the following deadlines with respect to the Plaintiff's motion for class Certification: a. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and expert disclosures relevant to class certification shall be filed on or before Sept. 9, 2026. b. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and expert disclosures relevant to class certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 7, 2026. c. The Plaintiff's reply in support of their motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 21, 2026. d. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be set for Nov. 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiff expects that his proposed schedule will provide adequate time to conduct pre-certification discovery and resolve any further discovery disputes without undue delay on the schedule. The Plaintiff cannot file a stipulation because the Defendant will not stipulate to continue the class certification and mediation deadlines. On Oct. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff served a Class Action Complaint ("CAC") on the Defendant LPC Survival, Ltd. d/b/a Berkey Filters. The Defendant is a dealer of authentic Berkey water filtration systems and replacement elements. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2xG2kR at no extra charge.[CC] MARCO FINE ARTS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marco Fine Arts, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Franco Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Marco Fine Arts, Inc., Case No. 26STCV14407 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Marco Fine Arts -- https://marcofinearts.com/home/ -- offers direct-to-garment and film-to-garment printing with seamless e-commerce integration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com MARYLAND: Bangura Seeks to Seal Class Cert Memorandum ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order sealing their memorandum in support of the motion for class certification, statement of facts in support of the motion for class certification, and certain exhibits filed with the Court that contain confidential information subject to the Protective Order. The information cited in the Memorandum of Law, Statement of Facts, and Exhibits were marked Confidential by the Defendant DPSCS. The Statement of Facts contains numerous citations to confidential information, and as such the Plaintiffs seek to file the Statement of Facts under Seal. In addition, the Memorandum in Support contains some materials that are confidential, so the Plaintiffs seek to file a public redacted version. Filing these materials under seal is necessary to protect the confidentiality of the information contained therein. In addition, the Plaintiffs are filing a redacted and unredacted copy of these materials to remove any information that may be covered by the protective order. The Defendant protects the public, its employees, and detainees and offenders under its supervision. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PvHG45 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edith K. Thomas, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ethomas@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com MATEOS REAL ESTATE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MATEOS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC and TIAGOS TACOS INC. D/B/A TIAGOS TACOS, Case No. 1:26-cv-23198-RKA (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property, cafeteria and restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial grocery store has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and supermarket and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. MATEOS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com MAZDA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Heated Seat Feature ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Richman, writing for autoNotion, reports that another carmaker is being sued for heated seats. This time, Mazda is under fire (get it?), with five different owners filing a complaint after getting burned. If you own a Mazda6, CX-9, CX-50, or CX-5, you may want to avoid the heated seat feature for now. First reported by Car Complaints, the class action lawsuit includes a "reasonable estimate" of the cost to repair the 301,549 vehicles that may have this overheating defect: $662,492,128.17 total, or $2,200 per car. Why are Mazda seats 'burning drivers'? The five plaintiffs all have their own horror story. Micah Prochaska's 2017 Mazda CX-9 burned a jacket left on the seat, leaving a large hole in the upholstery and filling the cabin with smoke as he drove home. Sharmee Anderson said her 2023 Mazda CX-5 left a blister on her left leg that was later classified as a second-degree burn. Russell Quinn claimed his 2016 Mazda CX-9 started smoking from the heated passenger seat, but his repair was denied since the car was already nine years old. Patrick Sandoval purchased his 2018 Mazda6 brand new. Due to his condition, neuropathy, he wasn't able to feel the excessive heat coming from the seat. He claims that the defective heating ended up aggravating his prior spine injury. The lawsuit read: "Upon inspection, after Plaintiff Sandoval felt excessive heat coming from the Vehicle's seat, Plaintiff Sandoval noticed he had several burns on his legs and buttocks caused by the heat warmer, which led him to never again use his Vehicle's seat warmer system. The excessive heat emitted from his Vehicle's seat warmer system also aggravated a prior spinal injury he had." He sold the car to purchase a 2023 CX-50, but he found out this vehicle had the same heating issue as the Mazda6. It continued: "However, upon activating the seat heating system on his new 2023 CX-50, he again noticed the seat was 'insanely hot' which caused him to stop using the seat warmers altogether. Plaintiff Sandoval was unable to use them as advertised." This last plaintiff reminds me of the Volkswagen Tiguan case. A paralyzed woman who can't feel below her torso ended up getting second-degree burns from her Tiguan's heated seats when placed at the highest level. However, this case involves only one model, and Volkswagen noted that the driver's manual includes a warning about using the heated seat feature if you have "reduced sensitivity." Volkswagen is claiming there's no defect, but Mazda's case claims a defect is present. The lawsuit claims that Mazda knew about the seat heaters but failed to warn its customers of the potential for bodily harm and lowered vehicle value. However, Mazda has not responded to the lawsuit yet, at least not publicly. Is it possible that Mazda's seat heaters are defective? I was able to find a few instances of customers complaining about excessive heat from their Mazda vehicle. Six years ago, someone on Reddit noted of their CX-5: "Is there any way to adjust the heat? My gf thinks her seats are scalding hot on all settings." While most people responded with jokes and snide comments, someone responded: "I have a 2016 as well. My seats get incredibly hot on the high setting. They also seem to stay really hot, even if I flip to low." However, I wonder if it's not a defect and rather just a bunch of stuff going wrong with Mazda's models. I see a lot more people complaining that the leather in their Mazda vehicles gets too hot, heater or not. It seems that the seat ventilation doesn't work as intended for many drivers, leaving the seats burning hot in warmer weather. Maybe a blend of hot heaters and bad ventilation on certain materials could be creating overheating in certain scenarios. [GN] MCKESSON CORP: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Suits ------------------------------------------------------- McKesson Corp. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, May 8, 2026, that it has been a defendant in hundreds of opioid-related cases brought in the U.S. by private plaintiffs, including hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals. These private plaintiff claims, and those of private entities generally, are not included in the previous settlement agreements, and that the company and two other national distributors reached class-action settlements with representatives of nationwide groups of acute care hospitals and certain third-party payors. The claims of remaining U.S. non-governmental plaintiffs are not included in the charges recorded by the company. In addition, the company and its Canadian affiliate are also defendants in four opioid-related cases pending in Canada. These cases involve the claims of provincial governments, municipal governments, a group representing indigenous people, as well as one case brought by an individual. The claims of a class of provincial governments are pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Docket No. S-189395, and a common-issues trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 22, 2028. McKesson Corp. is a global healthcare services and pharmaceutical distribution company that provides supply chain, technology, and clinical solutions to pharmacies, hospitals, and other care providers. The company plays a major role in the distribution of branded, generic, and specialty pharmaceuticals throughout North America and internationally. META PLATFORMS: Elsevier Sues Over Copyright Violations ------------------------------------------------------- ELSEVIER INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.; MACMILLAN PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC D/B/A MACMILLAN PUBLISHERS; MCGRAW HILL LLC; SCOTT TUROW; and S.C.R.I.B.E., INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; and MARK ZUCKERBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03689 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026) alleges violation of the Copyright Act, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works through Meta's sourcing of content for, and development and training of, Meta's generative artificial intelligence platform called Llama, as well as for removal of copyright management information. Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Megan K. Bannigan, Esq. James J. Pastore, Esq. Morgan A. Davis, Esq. Kathryn C. Saba, Esq. Abigail E. Liles, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Blvd E, New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 Email: mkbannigan@debevoise.com jjpastore@debevoise.com mdavis@debevoise.com ksaba@debevoise.com aeliles@debevoise.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Benjamin Gould, Esq. Chris N. Ryder, Esq. Samuel L. Rubinstein, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK 1201 Third Avenue, Ste 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com bgould@kellerrohrback.com cryder@kellerrohrback.com srubinstein@kellerrohrback.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gould, Esq. OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP 4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 480-2999 Email: matt@oandzlaw.com jeff@oandzlaw.com - and - Daryl L. Kleiman, Esq. Edward Crouse, Esq. Eli Goldman, Esq. OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP 491 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 951-1156 Email: dkleiman@oandzlaw.com ecrouse@oandzlaw.com egoldman@oandzlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Marin Sues Over Illegal Collection of Voiceprints ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL MARIN, PHILIP ROGERS, ALISON FLOWERS, ROBIN AMER, LINDSEY DORCUS, YOHANCE LACOUR, and VICTORIA NASSIF, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05438 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2026) is a class action under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, alleging that Meta unlawfully collected, retained, commercialized, and disseminated their voiceprints, failed to protect them from disclosure, and did so without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users. The Plaintiffs are seven Illinois residents whose recorded voices are among the most distinguished in their fields. They allege that Meta extracted their voiceprints without notice or consent, depriving them of the right BIPA guarantees to make an informed decision about the collection and use of their biometric data. Meta retains those voiceprints in its commercial models and continues to profit from them. The voiceprints cannot be recovered or replaced. The technology built on those voiceprints now displaces Plaintiffs in the markets where they earn their living, says the suit. The Plaintiffs also assert that Meta's commercial use of their voices and identities to build and sell AI products that mimic them violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. They further assert claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the common law of unjust enrichment. Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com MIAMI, FL: Lemus-Olyva Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYNOR LEMUS-OLYVA, v. BRIAN ENGLISH, Warden of Miami Correctional Facility, Case No. 3:26-cv-00308-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order: (1) Denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, except to find that Mynor Lemus-Olyva must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (2) Directing the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. Recent proceedings in a case out of California suggest that Hurtado remains a barrier to relief for petitioners like Mr. Lemus-Olyva. In February 2026, a judge in the Central District of California issued an order vacating Hurtado on behalf of a nationwide class of individuals who were arrested by ICE within the interior of the United States and denied an opportunity for bond. These recent proceedings also indicate that the government remains committed to its interpretation of § 1225(b)(2) notwithstanding the prior rulings of this court and others. This doesn't affect the court's jurisdiction, but it does affect Mr. Lemus-Olyva's relief. The appropriate remedy is to put the ball in his court to file a motion for custody redetermination in his pending removal proceedings, with the benefit of a finding from the court that he is not categorically ineligible for bond under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). The court likewise must deny immediate release because Mr. Lemus-Olyva has not met his burden of showing his current detention unlawful under section 1226(a). Mr. Lemus-Olyva is citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection. Immigration records reflect that he came to the attention of immigration officials in 2020 after he was arrested (and later convicted) in Allen County, Indiana, for driving under the influence of alcohol. In 2023, he was arrested again and subsequently convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. In February 2025, he was arrested on a sexual assault charge in Ohio, which remains pending as far as the record reveals. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XgwYI8 at no extra charge.[CC] MICROSOFT CORP: Illegally Collects Voiceprints, Flowers Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ALISON FLOWERS, PHILIP ROGERS, CAROL MARIN, ROBIN AMER, LINDSEY DORCUS, YOHANCE LACOUR, and VICTORIA NASSIF, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-05491 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2026) alleges that Microsoft retains voiceprints in its commercial models and continues to profit from them. Microsoft has further disseminated those voiceprints, encoded in model parameters, across its global Azure infrastructure, through its acquired Nuance speech services business, and to third-party affiliates, vendors, subprocessors, and service providers that operate Microsoft's voice products at scale, the suit says. The voiceprints cannot be recovered or replaced. The technology built on those voiceprints now displaces Plaintiffs in the markets where they earn their living. The Plaintiffs bring this action under BIPA alleging that Microsoft unlawfully collected, retained, commercialized, and disseminated their voiceprints, failed to protect them from disclosure, and did so without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users. The Plaintiffs also assert that Microsoft's commercial use of their voices and identities to build and sell AI products that mimic them violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, including its prohibitions on commercial use of identity and on the knowing distribution of unauthorized digital replicas. Plaintiffs further assert claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the common law of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' injuries are concrete and particularized. Microsoft extracted Plaintiffs' voiceprints without notice or consent, depriving them of the right BIPA guarantees to make an informed decision about the collection and use of their biometric data. Microsoft Corporation built a suite of commercial voice AI products using the voices of real people, including some of the most accomplished broadcast journalists, investigative podcasters, audiobook narrators, and voice actors working in the United States today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Whitcomb Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karyn Whitcomb, individually and as the Surviving Spouse of Richard Whitcomb, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00570 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04164-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William T. Dowd, Esq. DOWD AND DOWD PC 211 N. Broadway, Suite 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 621-2500 Fax: (314) 621-2503 Email: bill@dowdlaw.net MPC INC: Hall Class Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL HALL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MPC, INC. d/b/a STROKERS, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and JAMES DAVID RANDALL, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-02701-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 14, 2026) is an action for damages and other relief brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages. The Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs are all current or former exotic dancers who worked at Defendants' adult entertainment club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: jrose@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com MR. CONSTRUCTION: Luz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Enriquez Luz, Daniel Enriquez Luz, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. MR. CONSTRUCTION, LLC and JOSE MONTELONGO, Case No. 1:26-cv-02555-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2026), is brought against Defendants for systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to redress the unlawful employment practices of failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment, Defendants regularly employed approximately 15 or more construction laborers at a time. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated typically worked approximately 53 hours per week. Despite Plaintiffs' long work hours, Defendants never paid them overtime at a rate of one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the workweeks they failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wage, Defendants also failed to pay them their owed overtime premiums. The Defendants agreed and promised the Plaintiffs they would earn wages during their employment. The Plaintiffs relied on Defendants' agreements and promises, to Plaintiffs' detriment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs began their employment with Defendants in May 2023 as construction laborers and continued performing construction labor throughout their employment. The Defendants' business involves, inter alia, demolition, remodeling, and general construction, including plumbing, electrical, and flooring work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Werner, Esq. Dana K. Ford, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: (404) 400-3600 Email: dwerner@radfordscott.com dford@radfordscott.com NANO NUCLEAR: Dismissal of Class, Derivative Suits Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Nano Nuclear Energy Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that securities class actions and derivative suits have been filed and dismissed by the court with appeals filed. A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on August 9, 2024, against the company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned "Yvette Yang v. Nano Nuclear Energy Inc., et al.," No. 1:24-cv-06057 and on January 8, 2026, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, and on February 12, 2026, the court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and plaintiff's opening brief on appeal is due on May 28, 2026. In addition, on August 23, 2024, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of the company, as nominal defendant, against certain of its directors and officers in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, captioned "William Latza, Derivatively on Behalf of Nano Nuclear, Inc. v. James Walker, et al.," No. A-24-900423-C. On October 30, 2025, the court entered a formal order and statement of decision granting separate motions to dismiss filed by the company and its directors and officers. On February 10, 2026, plaintiff and defendants filed a stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs and fees, and the court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Nano Nuclear Energy Inc. is a development-stage company focused on next-generation, portable and modular nuclear power solutions for commercial and industrial applications. The company aims to advance innovative small-scale nuclear technologies to support clean energy and grid-resiliency needs. NEINSTEIN PLASTIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grossmann Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY GROSSMANN, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEINSTEIN PLASTIC SURGERY, PLLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04010 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On December 2, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a cyber security incident where an unauthorized actor accessed one of Defendant's email accounts and gained access to Defendant's network and systems between November 12, 2025, until November 20, 2025, and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information (Data Breach). On or about April 6, 2026, the Defendant began sending individualized notice letters to victims of the Data Breach. The Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members exposed in the Data Breach includes: names, dates of birth, contact information, health insurance information, and clinical information, such as healthcare provider names, medical diagnoses, and treatment information. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their Private Information in connection with the services Defendant provides. The Defendant is a plastic surgery practice with two locations in New York that specializes in "mommy makeover", liposuction, breast, and Ozempic plastic surgery procedures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit over Alopecia Meds ------------------------------------------------------------- Nektar Therapeutics disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, May 8, 2026, that on March 6, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, its CEO, CFO, and Chief Research and Development Officer, captioned "Schramke v. Nektar Therapeutics, et al." The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC rules promulgated thereunder and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 26, 2025 through December 15, 2025, the defendants made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding the "REZOLVE-AA" trial for treatment of severe alopecia. Nektar Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that develops drug candidates using its polymer conjugate technology platform to address unmet medical needs in oncology and immunology. NEW FORTRESS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------ New Fortress Energy Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated May 13, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that it is facing alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and certain rules promulgated thereunder relating to statements concerning the company's FLNG project in Altamira, Mexico. On September 17, 2024, plaintiff Mikolaj Bojdol filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain officers. On November 1, 2024, plaintiff Taylor Anderson filed a similar class action lawsuit also in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed on December 17, 2024. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 18, 2025 asserting claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased the Company's securities between September 20, 2022 and August 8, 2024 and seeks compensatory damages, interest, fees, and costs. On February 19, 2026, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. New Fortress Energy Inc. is a global energy infrastructure company focused on providing modern liquefied natural gas (LNG) solutions to power businesses, industries, and consumers. The company develops, finances, and operates LNG import terminals and related infrastructure to support affordable and cleaner energy NEW WAY: Magurean Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Artiom Magurean, Alisher Tanatarov, and Sultan Usmanov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. New Way Transportation LLC and R.G. Motors Transport LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03767-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., May 11, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Plaintiffs' unpaid minimum wages and overtime, and unlawfully withheld wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a uniform scheme to: (a) misclassify drivers as independent contractors; (b) fail to pay overtime wages; (c) impose unlawful deductions and chargebacks; (d) reduce wages below the federal minimum wage; and (e) fail to pay wages "free and clear." The Plaintiffs also bring a claim for breach of contract under Florida law based on Defendants' unlawful deductions exceeding contractual limits. The Plaintiffs are former truck drivers who performed interstate transportation work for Defendants. The Defendants are interstate vehicle transport companies that rely on truck drivers to move vehicles across state lines.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marice Guzman, Esq. MGJUSTICE LAW FIRM 66 W. Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (855) 457-2963 E-mail: marice@mgjustice.com NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCONNELL DORCE, CECELIA JONES, and SHERLIVIA THOMAS-MURCHISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, LOUISE CARROLL (Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development), SHERIF SOLIMAN (Commissioner of the New York City Department of Finance), NEIGHBORHOOD RESTORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORP., and BSDC KINGS COVENANT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following proposed class, appointment of Named Plaintiff's undersigned attorneys as counsel to this class, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper, and equitable: "All persons whose properties the Defendants transferred during Rounds 1-9 of the TPT Program under City Admin. Code sections 11-401 et seq. that had Surplus Equity." New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iFA2BV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew L. Berman, Esq. Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Yolande I. Nicholson, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 E-mail: mberman@vkvlawyers.com rvalli@vkvlawyers.com attorneynicholson@gmail.com - and - Keith H. Wofford, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 4900 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: kwofford@whitecase.com - and - Gregg L. Weiner, Esq. Alexander B. Simkin, Esq. Mohammed S. Hassan, Esq. J. William Piereson, Esq. Chloe D. Aubuchon, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 596-9000 E-mail: Gregg.Weiner@ropesgray.com Alexander.Simkin@ropesgray.com Mohammed.Hassan@ropesgray.com Will.Piereson@ropesgray.com Chloe.Aubuchon@ropesgray.com NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 22 -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights New York v. The State of New York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06965 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 30, 2017), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered a scheduling order as follows: By June 22, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file their fully briefed motion for class certification. By August 21, 2026, the Defendant shall file their fully briefed Daubert motion to strike plaintiff's expert's opinion and to preclude her testimony. The parties' application to serve and file briefs that exceed the court's page limit requirements is granted. Counsel may modify their agreed upon briefing schedule without court approval. Counsel shall file a letter notifying the Court of their modified agreed upon briefing schedule. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls.[CC] NEW YORK: De Souza Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZETTE DE SOUZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; WILLOW BAER, Acting Commissioner (in her official capacity); et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01222-RA-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring the action to Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky for the following purposes: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) -- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Motion(s) for class certification, if any. The Defendants include STEPHANIE THOMAS, Designee for Reasonable Accommodations (in her official and personal capacities); TERESA MEADOWS, Treatment Team Leader at Cleveland IRA (in her official and personal capacities); DAWN WILSON, Deputy Director of State Operations (in her official and personal capacities); SHERMARKE TANNIS, Regional Director of Human Resources (in his official and personal capacities); SHAUNA CARTER, Associate Director of Human Resources (in her official and personal capacities); COREEN PAYNE, Developmental Disabilities Program Specialist IV (in her official and personal capacities); LOLA COLLUM, Supervisor (in her official and personal capacities); MAJALIWA SUMCHAI, Human Resources Generalist (in her official and personal capacities); JANE DOE 1, Human Resources Generalist (in her official and personal capacities); and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ggfWQ at no extra charge.[CC] NEXSTAR MEDIA: MDL Antitrust Suit, Derivative Action Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- Nexstar Media Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Thursday, May 7, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, May 8, 2026, that is currently facing a consolidated anitrust suit and a derivataive action over alleged TV ads pricing Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits against the defendants and others alleging that they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1, 2014. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned "In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785." On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed plaintiffs lead and liaison counsel. In addition, a related shareholder derivative action has been filed in connection with the alleged antitrust violations, asserting claims on behalf of the company against certain current and former officers and directors for purported breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the same alleged conduct. The derivative plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to recover for the Company any damages, costs, and expenses that may be incurred in the MDL Litigation, as well as to implement corporate governance reforms. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is a leading diversified media company and the largest local television station operator in the United States, providing free over-the-air programming, digital media services, and advertising solutions across its portfolio of broadcast and digital properties. The company produces and distributes local and national news, sports, and entertainment content to audiences and advertisers in markets nationwide. NIKE INC: Faces Dunn Class Action Suit Over Illegal IEEPA Tariffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES DUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIKE, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00954-AR (D. Or., May 12, 2026) contends that the individuals that ultimately paid the IEEPA tariffs were undisputedly the consumers which are entitled to a refund of the tariffs that the Supreme Court ruled were illegal when charged. While Nike is able to recover refunds for the IEEPA tariffs it paid, Nike has not made any legally-binding commitment to return the same IEEPA tariffs it passed through to the consumers who bore the brunt of the illegal IEEPA tariffs. This lawsuit seeks to reverse this unjust result. For approximately one year, the federal government charged tariffs on certain products, including consumer goods, imported into the United States under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. For businesses with international supply chains, absorbing IEEPA tariffs was costly. Nike's CFO publicly disclosed the company anticipated a gross incremental cost increase of approximately $1 billion from new tariff rates in fiscal year 2026, and later revised that figure up to $1.5 billion. Many businesses, including Nike, responded to the high cost of IEEPA tariffs by passing those tariffs through to consumers in the form of price increases. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that those tariffs were not authorized by IEEPA and were thus illegal. Following the Supreme Court's decision, businesses sought to recover the IEEPA tariffs they paid through initiating litigation in the International Court of Trade. In response the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced a process to streamline refunds to businesses and other entities that paid IEEPA tariffs, but has not imposed any legal requirement that businesses who passed through the IEEPA tariffs refund the individuals who actually paid them. The Plaintiff purchased an item from Nike that was subject to an increased price that was directly tied to IEEPA tariffs that Nike paid and passed through to him. Nike is responsible for the pricing, marketing, distribution, and sale of its products in the United States. Nike develops, designs, manufactures, and sells athletic footwear and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Toby J. Marshall, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com - and - Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 421 North Harrington Street, Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com pwallace@leesegui.com NITV LLC: Hogan Files Suit in Ark. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NITV, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Melborn Wayne Hogan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NITV, LLC, NITV Federal Services, LLC, Charles Humble, Case No. 35CV-26-696 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty., May 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." NITV, LLC provides voice stress analysis technology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucien Ramseur Gillham, Esq. MEMBER AT HARRILL & SUTTER, P.L.L.C. 310 W. Conway St. Benton, AR 72015 NOCAL VENTURES LLC: Tilghman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NoCal Ventures LLC, et al. The case is styled as Zeiahne Tilghman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. NoCal Ventures LLC, DH Fremont LLC, DH Brentwood LLC, DH Berkeley LLC, Alex Munoz, Case No. 26CV186419 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." NoCal Ventures -- https://nocalventures.com/ -- is a forward-thinking investment and development firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Spivak, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, Pmb 42554 West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109 Phone: 818-582-3086 Fax: 213-634-2485 Email: david@spivaklaw.com NUSCALE POWER: Robbins Geller Rudman Appointed as Lead Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Truedson v. Nuscale Power Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00328 (D. Or., Filed Feb. 18, 2026), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order as follows: -- Movant IAM National Pension Fund/Local 353, I.B.E.W. Pension Fund's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff is Granted and the remaining motions for appointment of lead plaintiff are denied. -- The Court appoints Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as Lead Counsel and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. to serve as Local Counsel for the putative class as requested by the lead plaintiff. -- Lead plaintiff and the defendants shall meet and confer and file a joint status report that proposes a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint, any answer to the amended complaint or motion to dismiss the same, any motion for class certification, and any associated discovery deadlines by no later than May 26, 2026. All discovery related deadlines are Stayed pending a Rule 16 conference. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. NuScale is a publicly traded American company that designs and markets small modular reactors.[CC] ONE GROUP: Faces Yuwono Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDY YUWONO and ALEXANDER KNUF, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v. THE ONE GROUP HOSPITALITY, INC., HRA TIMES SQUARE, LLC., d/b/a RA SUSHI, and BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP., d/b/a BENIHANA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03872 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the California Labor Code as well as laws and regulations in effect in the States where Defendants do business. The Plaintiffs allege that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to timeshaving, (2) unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, (3) illegally retained gratuities, (4) liquidated damages, and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Yuwono further alleges that, pursuant to State wage laws, including NYLL, he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to an invalid tip credit. The Plaintiffs, putative collective members, and putative class members are all current and former employees working as servers, bussers, runners, hostesses, bartenders, food runners, and delivery persons for Defendants across the United States. The Defendants currently own, operate, or manage 166 venues including 30 steak restaurants, 84 Benihanas, 27 Kona Grills and 16 RA Sushis in major metropolitan cities in North America, Europe and the Middle East and 9 food and beverage venues in four hotels and casinos in the United States and Europe.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 OURBUS INC: Ross-Pilkington Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OurBus, Inc. The case is styled as Jackson Ross-Pilkington, Donta Gonzalez, Sebastian Dittgen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OurBus, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03728 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. OurBus -- https://www.ourbus.com/ -- is a mobility as a service company that operates an intercity bus network in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arun Gopal Ravindran, Esq. RAVINDRAN LAW FIRM PLLC 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 677-8713 Email: arun@ravindranlaw.com OUTDOOR SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cesario Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN CESARIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUTDOOR SPORTS CENTER, INC., d/b/a OutdoorSports.com, Case No. 1:26-cv-03913 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) alleges that the Defendant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by Defendant's failure to ensure that its website www.outdoorsports.com, is accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief because he personally encountered access barriers on the Website on multiple occasions while attempting to research and purchase specific products. The Plaintiff’s past visits were genuine and purposeful. They were tied to particular products, particular pages, and a concrete intent to make a purchase -- not to a generalized desire to monitor ADA compliance. The discriminatory conditions are ongoing because Plaintiff encountered substantially the same accessibility barriers across multiple visits separated in time, and the Website continues to market and sell the same categories of products through the same inaccessible interfaces, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to remediate the Website's accessibility barriers, adopt accessibility policies and governance, and ensure that the Website is fully accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in substantial conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The Defendant sells high-end headphones, audio equipment, accessories, and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PACAS INC: Faces Bernstein Suit Over Misleading Marketing Emails ---------------------------------------------------------------- LORI BERNSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACAS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05480 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2026) arises from the Defendant's pattern and practice of sending marketing emails with false and misleading subject lines to Washington residents. The discount codes underlying the promotions advertised in the subject lines above did not expire on the dates represented, and Defendant continues to send marketing emails advertising the same 40% and 50% off. These urgency cues are false, the suit says. The Plaintiff has been subjected to Defendant's misleading email marketing campaign since at least 2022. The Defendant sells alpaca-fiber clothing and accessories through its website, pacas.com, and regularly sends commercial marketing emails to consumers nationwide, including Washington residents. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law PACIFIC MARKET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Scherzi Due Feb. 5, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE SCHERZI, MARK MUNOZ, and LEAH BABIARZ, individually, and on behalf all others similarly situated, v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC, d/b/a PMI WORLDWIDE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02151-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline to join additional parties: Aug. 20, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Feb. 5, 2027 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file April 2, 2027 opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file May 14, 2027 reply to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court declines the Defendant's request to bifurcate or phase class and merits discovery. The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines, including a deadline for filing dispositive motions, after ruling on the motion for class certification. The Defendant is a designer and manufacturer of food and beverage containers intended for global retailers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KHwf8z at no extra charge.[CC] PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Paylocity Holding Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that on April 22, 2025, a potential class action complaint filed against the company was dismissed with prejudice. On May 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On November 16, 2020, a potential class action complaint was filed against the company in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that it violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint sought statutory damages, attorney's fees, and other costs. Paylocity Holding Corp is a provider of cloud-based payroll and human capital management software solutions for medium-sized organizations across the United States. The company offers an integrated platform that supports payroll, HR, benefits administration, time and labor management, and related workforce management services. PF CALI: STRANDHOLT Seeks Expedited Class Certification Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will apply ex parte for an order: (1) issuing, as soon as administratively practicable, a ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification ("MCC"), which is under submission; and (2) entering the Defendants' agreed continuance of the July 28, 2026 trial date and all trial-related deadlines until after the MCC ruling and a reasonable period for any necessary post-certification discovery and trial preparation. Good cause supports the requested relief because the MCC has been fully briefed and under submission since Dec. 8, 2025, the Defendants have agreed to stipulate to continuing the trial date, and the current schedule requires the Plaintiffs to prepare for trial without knowing whether the case will proceed on an individual or certified-class basis, the scope of any certified class, or the post-certification discovery and notice obligations that may apply. The Plaintiffs bring this ex parte application in lieu of a noticed motion because a regularly noticed motion could not reasonably be heard and resolved before the Plaintiffs must complete material trial-related obligations under the current schedule, and because the Defendants do not join the Plaintiffs' request that the Court issue or expedite a ruling on the MCC. Proceeding without relief would cause unnecessary and potentially prejudicial trial preparation before the certification posture is known. PF is a payroll service provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T3UAnH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Chloe J. Sykes, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com csykes@lelawfirm.com - and - Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com PHILIPS NORTH: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Philips North America, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02586-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., May 13, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.usa.philips.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website’s development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PIPESTONE HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Neitzel Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CLINTON NEITZEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PIPESTONE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02626 (D. Minn., May 14, 2026) is a class action suit on behalf the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information suffered by Defendant, which Defendant publicly reported on or around May 7, 2026. Recently, on a date that Defendant has not yet disclosed, Defendant became aware of unusual activity on its network environment and subsequently launched an investigation into the matter. On May 7, 2026, Defendant began sending notice letters to Plaintiff and Class Members informing them that their Private Information was exfiltrated in the Data Breach, the suit says The Plaintiff and individuals impacted by the Data Breach provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides and/or in connection with seeking employment from Defendant. The Defendant is a Minnesota-based limited liability company that provides solution based services to farmers and embarks upon farmer-owned partnerships. The Defendant specifically provides expert veterinary care, advanced sow management, and business advisory support services through its offices in Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, Illinois, and Indiana.[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 - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com PIVOT HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Gage Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN GAGE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PIVOT HEALTH, Case No. 1:26-cv-23503 (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2026) is a class action complaint against Pivot Health for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's information network. The PHI includes, without limitation, full name, health insurance billing and payment information, identification numbers, such as member identification, person identification, certificate identification, coverage identification, dates of coverage, and date of birth. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on March 13, 2026 in which an unauthorized actor infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected AWS environment and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII between February 26 and March 13, 2026 that was being kept unprotected (Data Breach). The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that PHI/PII was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and other relevant standards. The Plaintiff was and is very careful about sharing his PHI/PII. Representative Plaintiff has never knowingly transmitted unencrypted sensitive PHI/PII over the internet or any other unsecured source. The Defendant received highly sensitive PHI/PII from Representative Plaintiff in connection with the services Representative Plaintiff received or requested. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data an unauthorized third party accessed in the Data Breach. PIVOT HEALTH is a health insurance agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 S Dixie Hwy, Suite 240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Drive Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com PMGC HOLDINGS: Settles Wage and Hour Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- PMGC Holdings Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2026, that it agreed to settle a wage-and-hour class action last year and accrued $225,000 as management's best estimate of the probable loss, recognized as litigation settlement expense and recorded within accrued settlement liability in current liabilities. The final timing of payment remains uncertain pending completion of the administrative settlement process. PMGC Holdings Inc. is a holding company engaged in managing and operating its portfolio businesses and related corporate activities. The company oversees financial, strategic, and operational functions for its subsidiaries. POMDOCTOR LTD: Faces Securities Class Action over SEC Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------------- POMDOCTOR Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that it is currently facing a putative securities class action complaint was filed in February 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, certain of its officers and directors, its auditor, its agent for service of process, and the underwriter in connection with the company's IPO, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between October 9, 2025 and December 11, 2025 alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about, among other things, the company's business, operations, financial conditions and prospects. It further alleges that the company's stock price was artificially inflated by a purported fraudulent scheme and that investors suffered damages when the price of the company's securities declined. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, compensatory damages, and costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. POMDOCTOR Ltd. is a healthcare-focused company whose business centers on medical services and related technologies. The company operates internationally and is subject to regulatory and market risks associated with its industry and capital markets activities. PRIMROSE RETIREMENT: Burks Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY BURKS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PRIMROSE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01099 (N.D. Ohio, May 12, 2026) is a class action complaint against Primrose for its failure to pay employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee from June 2024 through December 2025 in Findlay, Ohio. Specifically, she was employed by Defendant as a State Tested Nursing Assistant and Certified Nursing Assistant. The Defendant owns and operates independent living, assisted living, and memory care communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Underpays K-9 Handlers, Passee Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME-LUCILLE PASSEE, BLAKE HARRISON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01843-TDC (D. Md., May 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), to remedy the Defendant's willful and unlawful violations of federal law. Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant, Prince George's County, Maryland, working in the position of Deputy Sheriff, K-9 Handler, below the rank of Sergeant, for the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office. The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are assigned at least one canine for which they are primarily responsible. The assigned canine lives at home with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff transports their assigned canine to and from work. Plaintiffs' job responsibilities also include caring for their assigned canine, and such tasks include, but are not limited to feeding, grooming, walking, and training their assigned canine. While working as Deputy Sheriff K-9 Handlers, Plaintiffs routinely work over 40 hours a week because they frequently work overtime in addition to their regularly scheduled hours performing canine care tasks. Additionally, Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated perform canine care tasks on weekends, paid days off, and holidays. Between November of 2023 and August of 2025, Plaintiffs regularly performed up to 1 hour of canine care tasks per day but were only compensated for 30-minutes on their scheduled workdays and the compensatory time that they received was paid only at straight time. Beginning in August of 2025, Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated began receiving 30 minutes of compensatory time every day that they had a canine in their possession, including weekends, days off, and holidays. However, Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated still regularly performed up to one hour of canine care tasks per day and the compensatory time that they received was paid only at straight time, adds the complaint. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are not fully compensated for the additional hours above 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs, therefore, bring this action against Defendant as collective action because of Defendant's unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs' right to overtime compensation in accordance with the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Megan Mechak, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: mkm@mselaborlaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Barton Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BARTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-01332-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 31, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move for an order granting class certification, appointing the class representative, and appointing class counsel. The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iUuf9L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste. 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com - and - Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Data Breach Suits Consolidated --------------------------------------------------- Prosper Marketplace, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that disclosures that multiple purported class-action lawsuits related to the September 2025 Incident have been filed against the company while the federal lawsuits filed against Prosper have been consolidated into one proceeding, captioned "In re: Prosper Funding, LLC Data Breach Litigation." Prosper Marketplace, Inc. operates an online peer-to-peer lending platform that connects individual and institutional investors with consumers seeking personal loans. The company provides unsecured installment loans and related financial products through its digital marketplace. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Class Cert Hearing Continued --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON ET AL., v. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL TEXAS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for continuance of oral hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 29, 2026, the Court entered an order setting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification for an oral hearing on June 8, 2026. Since entry of the Order, the Parties have been engaged in good faith negotiations to determine whether an agreement can be reached between the Plaintiffs and either or both of the Defendants to resolve this lawsuit. The Parties need and request more time to conduct these negotiations. Further, the Parties also need more time to conduct discovery and to prepare for this oral hearing, which the Parties submit should be deferred in order to promote the Parties' negotiations. All the Parties are in also agreement with this request for at least a 60-day continuance of the current June 8, 2026, hearing on class certification. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QrYZ2e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura B. Beshara, Esq. Michael M. Daniel, Esq. DANIEL & BESHARA, P.C. 3301 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226-1637 Telephone: (214) 939-9230 E-mail: laurabeshara@swbell.net Daniel.michael@att.net The Defendants are represented by: Sarah R. Smith, Esq. David A. Talbot, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis St., Suite 7350 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 293-7878 Facsimile: (346) 293-7877 E-mail: Sarah.Smith@dinsmore.com David.Talbot@dinsmore.com - and - Roger L. McCleary, Esq. James C. Burnett, Esq. PARSONS MCENTIRE MCCLEARY PLLC One Riverway, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 960-7315 Facsimile: (713) 960-7347 E-mail: rmccleary@pmmlaw.com jburnett@pmmlaw.com PUTNAM COUNTY: Underpays Hospital Hourly Workers, Green Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JACKLYN R. GREEN and KRYSTAL D. GALLAHER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PUTNAM COUNTY HOSPITAL, Case No. 2:26-cv-00349-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind., May 14, 2026) is a class action claim pursuant to the Indiana Wage Payment Statute and combined Fair Labor Standards Act collective action lawsuit against Putnam County Hospital to address class-wide wage and hour and overtime violations. Specifically, Putnam County Hospital has been systematically underpaying wages and overtime wages to Green, Gallaher and similarly situated hourly paid Putnam County Hospital workers. Plaintiffs Green and Gallaher are current employees of Putnam County Hospital. Both work as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees in Putnam County Hospital's Housekeeping Department. Gallaher began her employment in January 2025 and Green began her employment in February 2025. Putnam County Hospital is a county hospital operating in Greencastle, Putnam County, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr. HASSLER KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com RANCH AND HOME: Schwartz Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- KARIE SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANCH AND HOME SUPPLY, LLC d/b/a MURDOCH'S RANCH AND HOME SUPPLY; RICK UNGERSMA, an individual; MARYKAY YELEY, an individual; and ASHLEY COMBS, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02019 (D. Colo., May 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWA"), and for age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA"). The complaint relates that Murdoch's employs approximately 121 Assistant Store Managers across is 47 retail stores. In March 2025, Murdoch's reclassified the Assistant Store Manager position as non-exempt and began paying employees in that position on an hourly basis. Murdoch's did not, however, compensate Plaintiff or other former Assistant Store Managers for the overtime they had worked during the prior period of misclassification. The Plaintiff also brings individual claims for age discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff, a 51-year-old Assistant Store Manager, was subjected to differential treatment, exclusion from leadership functions, escalating discipline, and ultimately termination following her complaints of discriminatory treatment. Plaintiff was replaced by a 19-year-old with approximately six months of retail experience. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, lost wages and benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief. Plaintiff Karie Schwartz was employed by Murdoch's from January 22, 2024 through her termination on December 3, 2024. Defendants are Co-Owners of Murdoch's and were Plaintiff's "employer".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Ray, Esq. Williams & Associates, PLLC 44 Cook Street, #100 Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (888) 315-3841 Facsimile: (303) 502-5821 E-mail: aray@williamsray.com RC SUPERSTORE: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RC SUPERSTORE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05203 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.rcsuperstore.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. RC Superstore, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 REDDIT INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Class Action Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo Finance reports that multiple securities fraud class action deadlines are approaching for Reddit shareholders, with several law firms urging investors to consider securing counsel. The actions relate to alleged securities law violations and reflect ongoing legal investigations involving Reddit and its disclosures. These proceedings introduce potential legal and financial uncertainty for Reddit and could be relevant for existing and former investors in NYSE:RDDT. Reddit, trading on the NYSE under ticker NYSE:RDDT, closed at $158.17 most recently. The stock is up 39.7% over the past year, while year to date it is down 34.6%, highlighting a wide range of outcomes for recent shareholders. Short term moves have been more muted, with a 1.5% gain over the past week and a 3.4% decline over the past month. In this context, the emerging securities fraud class actions add a separate layer of risk that sits alongside day to day share price moves. As these cases progress, investors may want to monitor any disclosures from Reddit related to potential liabilities, insurance coverage or settlement discussions that could influence future financial flexibility and sentiment toward the stock. Stay updated on the most important news stories for Reddit by adding it to your watchlist or portfolio. Alternatively, explore our Community to discover new perspectives on Reddit. For you as a shareholder or prospective investor, the cluster of securities fraud class action deadlines introduces a separate legal track that sits alongside Reddit’s operating story of user growth, strong free-cash-flow margins and rapid advertising expansion. These lawsuits typically focus on whether past disclosures were complete and accurate. Outcomes can range from dismissal to settlements or, less commonly, trial verdicts, each with different implications for cash outflows, insurance recoveries and management attention. Given Reddit’s ongoing push in AI data licensing and a 74% year-on-year rise in advertising revenue, any future fines, restrictions on disclosures or changes to reporting practices could interact with how the market weighs these growth opportunities against legal and compliance costs. The key takeaway is that the legal process tends to move on a different timeline to quarterly results, so investors may want to treat it as a background risk factor that could affect future financial flexibility rather than something that shows up immediately in daily price moves. How This Fits Into The Reddit Narrative The legal scrutiny around securities disclosures could reinforce the narrative’s focus on long-term user and monetization growth by pushing Reddit to provide clearer, more detailed communication about its advertising and AI data-licensing businesses. At the same time, potential legal costs or tighter oversight might weigh against the narrative’s expectation that Reddit can steadily scale margins from high advertising growth and data licensing without significant additional expense. The narrative highlights content moderation, data-licensing uncertainty and competition with platforms like Meta, TikTok and Discord, but it does not fully factor in securities-law litigation risk that could affect disclosure practices and management bandwidth. Knowing what a company is worth starts with understanding its story. Check out one of the top narratives in the Simply Wall St Community for Reddit to help decide what it's worth to you. The Risks and Rewards Investors Should Consider -- Ongoing securities fraud class actions could lead to settlements, higher legal expenses or changes to disclosure practices, which may affect Reddit’s future profitability and financial flexibility. -- If litigation findings raise questions about past disclosures, this could influence investor confidence at a time when Reddit is being compared closely with larger digital-advertising peers such as Alphabet, Meta and Snap. -- Reddit reports a 14.4% annual increase in domestic daily active visitors to 53.5 million, which gives the company a larger base to support advertising revenue and data-licensing opportunities even while legal processes unfold. -- Strong free-cash-flow margins of 30.1% and 74% year-on-year advertising revenue growth in recent quarters give Reddit more room to absorb potential legal costs while continuing to invest in AI-powered tools and advertiser products. What To Watch Going Forward From here, focus on how Reddit updates the market about the class actions, including any guidance on potential financial exposure, insurance coverage and timelines for key procedural steps. It also helps to track whether legal disclosures affect analyst sentiment, especially after the recent rating and target cut by Phillip Securities. In parallel, keep an eye on whether Reddit’s strong user engagement, ARPU growth and AI-focused advertising tools continue to support revenue and free-cash-flow performance, as this will shape how well the business can handle any legal overhang. To ensure you're always in the loop on how the latest news impacts the investment narrative for Reddit, head to the community page for Reddit to never miss an update on the top community narratives. [GN] REEL PRODUCTS: Bennett Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reel Products, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05464 (N.D. Ill., May `12, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.reelpaper.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law RENTGROW INC: "Davis" Suit Remanded to Circuit Court ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in the case captioned as Erictavia Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RentGrow, Inc., Defendant, Civil No. 25-3211-BAH (D. Md.), issued a Memorandum Opinion on May 7, 2026, denying as moot RentGrow's motion to dismiss and remanding the putative class action to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for lack of Article III standing. In June 2024, Davis applied for an apartment at Volterra Apartments in Pikesville, Maryland, fleeing a difficult situation at a different apartment complex. Volterra required all applicants to consent to a tenant screening report. Davis paid an application fee to Volterra and provided her name, address, date of birth, and Social Security Number. On or around June 8, 2024, Volterra ordered Davis's screening report from RentGrow, which returned it the same day. The report contained inaccurate, incomplete, and materially misleading information. Specifically, one result listed as a Collection from Apartment Community was, according to Davis, a reference by her apartment complex to collect rent from her. Volterra followed RentGrow's recommendation and denied Davis's application, thereby threatening her housing security. Davis filed her complaint in state court on August 14, 2025, alleging violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), the Maryland Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (MCCRAA), and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. RentGrow removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act on September 26, 2025. The Court noted its independent duty to assess jurisdiction. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The Court found that Davis's claims essentially allege mere statutory violations, which do not amount to concrete harm sufficient to establish injury in fact. Davis did not allege that she paid any fees directly to RentGrow; she paid an application fee to Volterra, which in turn ordered the screening report from RentGrow. The Court further found that Davis failed to articulate how RentGrow's alleged lack of mandatory registration and bond resulted in any injury to her, since any application fee was likely owed regardless of the provider Volterra chose to perform the tenant screen. Davis also failed to tie any claimed injuries to the alleged violations of the MCCRAA and MCPA. While she alleged hardship from Volterra rejecting her application, she failed to connect that injury to RentGrow's alleged failure to post a bond or register. At best, the Court noted, Volterra -- not Davis -- may have relied on RentGrow's purportedly inaccurate claim that it was registered and licensed. Davis did not allege her own reliance on any specific misrepresentation or omission by RentGrow, nor did she allege that she would not have applied to Volterra had RentGrow disclosed the omitted information. The Court adopted its reasoning from the earlier case Davis v. Screening Reports, Inc., 25-1785-BAH (D. Md. Dec. 11, 2025), in full, noting the near-identical factual and legal posture of both cases. The Court concluded that where a federal court finds a removed case does not satisfy Article III standing requirements, it is obligated to remand the matter to state court. Accordingly, RentGrow's motion to dismiss was denied as moot, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A copy of the court's decision is available at s https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NDVFqQ from PacerMonitor.com RENTOKIL NORTH: Forslin Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC FORSLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-03236 (E.D. Pa., May 12, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees were denied proper payment for all hours worked and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant violated the FLSA by knowingly and willfully permitting Plaintiff and Class Members to perform overtime work without the proper compensation. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Pest Control Technician from March 20, 2023, to September 12, 2025. Rentokil is a leading commercial and residential pest control and facility hygiene services company operating in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Headquartered in Reading, Pennsylvania, it is the North American division of the global leader Rentokil Initial plc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: jamisen@lcllp.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Gause Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL GAUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and ALLIED SERVICES, LLC d/b/a REPUBLIC SERVICES, Case No. 3:26-cv-01987-MGL (D.S.C., May 15, 2026) is a collective and class action complaint against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, as well as South Carolina common law. The case is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and as an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action on behalf of all others similarly situated, for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, treble damages, unpaid straight-time wages, the reasonable value of uncompensated services, attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory relief, and other relief under the FLSA, the SCPWA, and South Carolina common law (breach of contract and quantum meruit in the alternative). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have been employed by Republic as Construction Account Managers (CAMs) and have been uniformly classified by Republic as exempt "outside sales" employees under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. Part 541. Ms. Gause was employed by Republic as a CAM from on or about March 22, 2022, through on or about December 29, 2025, and performed her work for Republic from her home office in the State of South Carolina throughout that period. Defendant Republic directly or through its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries, owns, operates, and controls waste, recycling, and environmental services facilities and operations throughout the United States, including in the State of South Carolina, and establishes, implements, and enforces the uniform classification, compensation, and employment policies applicable to all CAMs, including Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Badge Humphries, Esq. James M. Griffin, Esq. GRIFFIN HUMPHRIES LLC Columbia, SC 29223 8906 Two Notch Road, Suite 200 Telephone: (803) 744-0800 Facsimile: (803) 744-0805 E-mail: jgriffin@griffinhumphries.com bhumphries@griffinhumphries.com RESTAURANT INVESTMENT: Orcel Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTAURANT INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05049 (D.N.J., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.eatphotoday.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Restaurant Investment Group, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 RICOH USA: Seeks to Strike Michael Phillips' Declaration -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH, USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on June 15, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move for entry of an order to strike the declaration of G. Michael Phillips, Ph.D. pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and L.R. 7-4. Given that the issues presented in the Motion are closely related to the issues in the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Defendant requests that this motion be heard in conjunction with the hearing on the motion for class certification. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pCT1Uu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Deanna J. Lucci, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. Taylor A. Stewart, Esq. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Brian A. Mcaleenan, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-7442 Facsimile: (213) 403-6511 E-mail: JARiley@duanemorris.com DJLucci@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com TStewart@duanemorris.com GMaatman@duanemorris.com BAMcaleenan@duanemorris.com RISINGER BROS: Class Cert Responses Due May 26 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Contreras v. Risinger Bros Transfer Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01441 (CD. Ill., Filed Oct. 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response regarding motion to certify class: -- Responses due by May 26, 2026 The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Risinger provides innovative transportation solutions.[CC] RISINGER BROS: Seeks More Time to Respond to FLSA Notice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CONTRERAS and WILLIE MCGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RISINGER BROS. TRANSFER, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01441-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 7-day extension of time, through and including May 26, 2026, to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to facilitate notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Despite diligent efforts during the extended period, Risinger requires an additional 7 days to complete its evidence gathering and to prepare its opposition, the suit says. The Plaintiffs' counsel represented that the Plaintiffs have no objection to Risinger's requested extension of time. On Dec. 23, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, alleging putative class and collective action claims against Risinger. On April 20, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to facilitate notice of this lawsuit to allegedly "similarly situated collective action members," whom the Plaintiffs define as "all delivery drivers who worked for Risinger in the United States during the past three years and were classified as independent contractors." The Defendant provides dry freight delivery services in Illinois and throughout the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I2XOYG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Caesar A. Tabet, Esq. Daniel L. Stanner, Esq. Amanda N. Catalano, Esq. Rachel D. Klein, Esq. TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC 209 S. LaSalle Street, 7th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 762-9450 E-mail: ctabet@tdrlaw.com dstanner@tdrlaw.com acatalano@tdrlaw.com rklein@tdrlaw.com ROADRUNNER MANAGEMENT: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Griselda Elizabeth Martinez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ROADRUNNER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; RATP DEV USA, LLC; VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2026CUOE060548 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05036. The State Court Action is a putative wage-and-hour class action, with Plaintiff seeking recovery on behalf of herself and all non-exempt California employees from January 26, 2022 to present for the following underlying Labor Code claims: Unpaid Missed Rest Breaks under Labor Code; Unpaid Missed Meal Breaks under Labor Code; Failure to Pay for all Overtime Wages Earned under Labor Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Pay for all Wages Earned under Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Required Business Expenses under Labor Code; Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records under Labor Code; Failure to Pay Wages Upon Separation under Labor Code; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Terry L. Higham, Esq. Kelsey O'Brien, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.909.7775 Email: thigham@constangy.com kobrien@constangy.com kobrien@constangy.com ROCKERZ INC: Fisher Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Tanner D. Fisher, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Rockerz, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-03324-MTM (D. Ariz., May 11, 2026) is a class lawsuit against the Defendant for its unlawful failure to properly calculate and pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were non-exempt workers who were assigned and performed piece-rate work, for which they were compensated based on a percentage of completed jobs rather than for all hours actually worked. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to properly include all remuneration in the regular rate and failed to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. As a result of Defendant's common policy and practice, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely worked well over 40 hours per week without receiving legally required overtime compensation, the lawsuit says. Rockerz employed Plaintiff as a concrete floor polisher from January 2024 to mid-September 2025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua W. Carden, Esq. ROBINSON LAW OFFICES 202 E. Earll Dr., Suite 490 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2698 Telephone: (602) 888-8994 Facsimile: (602) 888-8531 E-mail: joshua@robinsonlawoffices.com ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Class Cert Response in Hohle Due June 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nohle et al v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01688 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order granting MOTION to Certify Class: -- Response to Motion due by June 5, 2026 -- Reply to Response to Motion due by June 19, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Roto-Rooter provides plumbing repair and maintenance services.[CC] ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Barto Sues Over Synthetic Fragrance in Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHARON BARTO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., A LIBERIAN CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26cv23412 (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2026) seeks remedies for the Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities despite the Defendant's knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of these practices. The Defendant claims to offer lodging, restaurant and bar service, pool and exercise facilities to the general public. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of Synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with the products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. For purposes of branding, manufacturing an [illusory] association between the fragranced products and the quality of Defendant's Facilities, purposes calculated singularly to maximize revenue and profitability and not to promote a healthy and safe consumer experience, the Defendant exposed tens of thousands of individuals [even at a conservative estimate] to these pollutants, without warning, and without regard to the short term, long term and/or discriminatory impact upon disabled persons of Defendant's reckless conduct, says the suit. Royal Caribbean Group, formerly known as Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., is a cruise holding company headquartered in Miami, Florida, United States and incorporated in Liberia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cortney Beth Szafran, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: cbs@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com RTS LISTINGS: Faces Lenau Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LENAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RTS LISTINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-12210-WGY (D. Mass., May 14, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com RYDER DEDICATED: Pickens Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Pickens, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. RYDER DEDICATED LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02531 (W.D. Tenn., May 7, 2026), is brought against Defendant as a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid warehouse employees. The Defendant had a time keeping system in which to record and track the work hours of Plaintiff and those similarly situated during all times material to this action. However, Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods for Defendant during all times material without being paid for such time at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay. The Defendant either failed to record all the compensable overtime hours of Plaintiff and those similarly situated in to its time keeping system or changed, reduced, deducted or "edited out" some of their compensable overtime hours from its time keeping system within weekly pay periods during all times pertinent to this action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid warehouse employee. The Defendant provides technology-driven supply chain, dedicated transportation and fleet management as a third-party provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. Landry Smith, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com lsmith@jsyc.com RYVYL INC: Settlement in Consolidated Derivative Suit Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- RYVYL Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that on January 13, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California approved a settlement of a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. On June 22, 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against certain of the company's current and/or former officers and directors titled "Christy Hertel, derivatively on behalf of RYVYL Inc., f/k/a GreenBox POS v. Ben Errez et al.," Case No. 3:23-CV-01165-GPC-SBC. On August 4, 2023, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the same court titled "Marcus Gazaway, derivatively on behalf of RYVYL Inc., f/k/a GreenBox POS v. Ben Errez et al.," Case No. 3:23-CV-01425-LAB-BLM. Both derivative complaints generally allege that the defendants failed to implement adequate internal controls that would prevent false and misleading financial information from being published by the company and that controlling shareholders participated in overpayment misconduct resulting in violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20 of the Exchange Act and breaches of fiduciary duties, purportedly on behalf of the company. On April 2, 2024, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for an order consolidating the Hertel and Gazaway cases under the caption "In re RYVYL Inc. Derivative Litigation," Lead Case No. 3:23-CV-01165-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.). On May 6, 2024, the court issued an order staying the action until after the final resolution of any motion to dismiss the securities class action. Separately, on May 1, 2024, a third, nearly identical shareholder derivative complaint was filed in Clark County, Nevada, by plaintiff "Christina Brown, derivatively on behalf of RYVYL, Inc. v. Ben Errez et al.," Case No. A-24-892382-C. The complaints seek damages and contribution and a direction that the company and the defendants take actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws. On May 8, 2025, all parties reached an agreement in principle to fully resolve and settle all claims alleged in the lawsuits, and on Sept. 30, 2025 they filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. On November 14, 2025, the court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. Subsequently, on Dec. 12, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, which was set for hearing on January 9, 2026 and on Jan. 13, 2026, the court granted the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. RYVYL Inc. is a financial technology company that provides payment processing and related services to merchants and other businesses. The company focuses on delivering secure, technology-driven transaction solutions across various industries. SACRAMENTO, CA: Class Cert. Filing Modified to March 18, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hood, et al., v. City of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00232 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by Dec. 14, 2026 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by Jan. 12. 2027 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by Feb. 9, 2027 -- Expert discovery shall be completed by Feb. 23, 2027 -- Any motion for class certification shall be filed by March 18, 2027 -- All motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than June 14, 2027 and be noticed for hearing on a date that is listed on Judge Coggins's webpage and is no more than 60 days after the filing of the motion. Having considered the parties' stipulation, the court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order as requested. The parties should be aware, however, that given the lengthy extension of time being granted by this order and previous extensions, the court will not be inclined to grant any further extensions of the schedule absent good cause. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Discrimination. Sacramento, capital of the U.S. state of California, lies at the confluence of the Sacramento River and American River. [CC] SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Hernandez from Custody by May 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOISES SOTO HERNANDEZ, v. SAMUEL OLSON, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00571-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Brisco entered an order that: (1) Conditionally grants the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directs the Respondents to release Moises Soto Hernandez on or before May 27, 2026, unless he is provided with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226 and corresponding regulations; (2) Directs the clerk to email forthwith a copy of this order to the Warden of the Miami Correctional Facility at the Indiana Department of Correction to secure compliance with this order; (3) Directs the Respondents to file proof of compliance with this order by May 29, 2026. Mr. Soto Hernandez asks for outright release, but the court views the opportunity for an individualized bond hearing as the correct remedy. He was detained pursuant to a warrant issued by an immigration officer in accordance with 8 U.S.C. section 1226, and it is for the Attorney General to decide whether release is warranted under the circumstances presented by this case. However, if the government does not provide him with an individualized bond hearing, then he must be released, because his continued detention without an opportunity for bond is unlawful. Because Mr. Soto Hernandez is entitled to relief as a matter of statutory law, the court does not reach his argument that his detention without an opportunity for bond violates the Due Process Clause. Mr. Soto Hernandez is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection. He came to the attention of immigration officials in March 2026, when he was arrested in connection with a criminal charge in Allen County, Indiana. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QTlfun at no extra charge.[CC] SAVAGE X: Wainwright Labor Class Suit Seeks PAGA Civil Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- KASHARAH WAINWRIGHT, as an individual and on behalf of all other current and former aggrieved employees v. SAVAGE X RETAIL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15043 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 11, 2026) is a class complaint for recovery of civil penalties under California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Specifically, prior to appearing for her shift and before clocking in, the Plaintiff was required to check which employees called out for the day and update the work schedules. Additionally, while Plaintiff was clocked out for meal periods, she was required to perform work duties such as "manager overrides". As a result of Defendants' work demands, the Plaintiff was not paid all minimum and overtime wages earned. The Plaintiff is a current non-exempt employee of the Defendants. She has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee since February 9, 2025. Her position is Assistant Manager, and her job duties include, without limitation, handling warehouse shipping and receiving, and customer service. Savage X is the corporate operating entity established to manage the physical, brick-and-mortar storefronts for Rihanna's inclusive lingerie brand, Savage X Fenty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. Tiara Gose-Hardy, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw.com tgose@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. KASHARAH WAINWRIGHT HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com SBC MEDICAL: Sued over Alleged Delaware Charter Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- SBC Medical Group Holdings Inc disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed on February 11, 2026, against the company and its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging violations under Delaware General Corporation Law Section 141(k) and Delaware common law based on the company's charter allegedly restricting the removal of directors to only for cause. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of declaratory and injunctive relief, class certification, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs, along with such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. SBC Medical Group Holdings Inc operates medical facilities and related healthcare services through a network of clinics and affiliated providers. The company focuses on delivering clinical care, diagnostic services, and related healthcare solutions to patients in its regional markets. SEARCH ROI: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Tracking Pixels ------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE CASTRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEARCH ROI LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a PROGRESSIVE-LOANS.COM, Case No. 3:26-cv-04483 (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2026) contends that Defendant secretly installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on every visitor's device. Accordingly, those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow visitors' behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. SEARCH ROI allegedly spammed Plaintiff from a server within the state of California from an address purporting to be the "Department_of VA_Records." Confused, and believing that the e-mail was official communication from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Plaintiff opened the email and clicked on the link it contained, the suit says. The Plaintiff has received countless misleading spam e-mail advertising SEARCH ROI. After receiving the attached spam and being deceived into clicking on the link embedded, she visited Defendant's website, says the suit. SEARCH ROI LLC is loan company headquartered in Delaware with its principal place of business in Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SEASTAR MEDICAL: Wells Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ SeaStar Medical Holding Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2026, that on April 27, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed with prejudice an amended securities complaint alleging that the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer made or caused to be made material misstatements or omissions regarding the projected timing for obtaining FDA approval of the its Selective Cytopheretic Device (SCD) and the recognition of certain financial instruments. On July 5, 2024, Forrest A. K. Wells, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative class action complaint in said court captioned "Wells v. SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation et al.," Case No. 1:24-cv-0187 (D. Colo.). It alleges that their aforementioned actions culminated in the restatement of its consolidated financial statements disclosed in a Form 8-K filed on March 27, 2024. It asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) and seeks to recover, among other remedies, compensatory damages. On March 4, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The defendants' motion to dismiss was referred to District Court Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara. On February 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge O'Hara issued a written report and recommendation to District Judge Regina M. Rodriguez that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. On March 30, 2026, Judge Rodriguez adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On April 21, 2026, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Additionally, on December 13, 2024, Jose Lazo, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative stockholder derivative action complaint in the District of Colorado, captioned "Lazo v. Schlorff et al.," C.A. No. 1:24-cv-3444. The factual allegations of the derivative action are stated to be substantially similar to those in the class action. On January 30, 2025, upon the joint motion of the parties, the court stayed the action and shall remain in place pending the court's resolution of the then-anticipated motion to dismiss to be filed in the class action. SeaStar Medical Holding Corp is a medical technology company focused on developing and commercializing extracorporeal therapies designed to reduce the consequences of excessive inflammation in critically ill patients. The companys lead product candidate, the Selective Cytopheretic Device (SCD), is being developed for use in acute and chronic inflammatory conditions. SELECTIVE PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay All Wages, Ferrusquilla Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA FERRUSQUILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECTIVE PERSONNEL INC.; SELECTIVE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV150017 (Calif. Super., May 11, 2026) alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. Accordingly, the Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: -- failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); -- failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; -- failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; and -- failing to reimburse necessary business-related cost, the suit says. The Plaintiff is an "aggrieved employee" because she was employed by the alleged violator and had one or more of the violations committed against her, and therefore is properly suited to represent the interests of all other aggrieved employees. Selective Personnel is a staffing and recruiting agency that matches candidates with various employment opportunities, spanning roles like industrial Quality Assurance/Quality Control inspectors to general office and corporate placements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com SERVBANC HOLDCO: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ServBanc Holdco, Inc. ("ServBanc Holdco"), as successor in interest to IF Bancorp, Inc. ("IF Bancorp" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IROQ), the members of IF Bancorp's board of directors (the "Board"), and ServBank, National Association ("ServBank, N.A."). This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise in connection with the Board's solicitation of IF Bancorp shareholders to vote in favor of a merger transaction (the "Merger")-based on false representations of the consideration shareholders would receive-pursuant to which IF Bancorp merge with and into ServBanc Holdco. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/IROQ. ServBanc Case Details The Complaint alleges that, in connection with IF Bancorp's merger with ServBanc Holdco, Defendants caused the Company to issue a materially false and misleading proxy statement that, among other things: -- overstated the value and likelihood of the consideration to be received by shareholders, including a purported $27.20 per-share merger price and the possibility of a special dividend tied to certain tangible common equity thresholds; -- failed to disclose that, due to a required $13.99 million loan renewal and an associated reserve that would be imposed as a condition of ServBanc Holdco's approval, there was no meaningful likelihood that IF Bancorp's tangible common equity would meet the threshold necessary to avoid a downward adjustment or to trigger any special dividend; -- misled shareholders regarding the true amount and likelihood of the consideration they would receive, when in reality the merger consideration was expected to be reduced to approximately $26.40 per share and any additional contingent payment was uncertain and dependent on future loan repayment; and -- as a result, Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, depriving shareholders of the ability to cast a fully informed vote, inducing them to approve the Merger and forgo appraisal rights, and causing them to receive less than the fair value of their shares. What's Next for ServBanc Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/IROQ, or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you held shares as of February 3, 2026, you have until June 29, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to ServBanc Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for ServBanc Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, or Instagram. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] SHEIN US: Severino Sues Over Advertising of False Price Discounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- STACEE SEVERINO, GAYLE BROWNLEE, and POOJA PRAKASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHEIN US SERVICES, LLC, ROADGET BUSINESS PTE, LTD., ZOETOP BUSINESS CO., LTD., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-04062-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud (intentional misrepresentation and omission), unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from Shein's alleged practice of advertising false price discounts. According to the complaint, Shein systematically represents to its customers that they are receiving substantial discounts at marked down prices when they purchase Shein-branded products. However, Shein does not offer these products at a genuine discount. In fact, these products were rarely offered and likely never sold at the full reference price. This deceptive practice has allowed Shein to reap billions of dollars in revenues from the U.S. alone, all at the expense of unsuspecting customers who believe Shein's sales prices are genuine, discounted, bargain prices, suit says. Shein US Services, LLC is a retailer with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. Roadget Business Pte Ltd. is a software developer based in Singapore. Zoetop Business Co., Limited is a Hong Kong-based holding and trading company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 Email: awolf@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Christopher P. Dolotosky, Esq. CAFFERY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP 135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com cdolotosky@caffertyclobes.com SIERRA LIFESTAR: Denial of Class Certification in Martinez Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADAM N. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIERRA LIFESTAR, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. F089576 (Cal. App.), Judge Donald R. Franson, Jr. of the Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, reversed the March 25, 2025 ruling denying the motion for class certification. Lifestar, doing business as Lifestar Ambulance, provides 911 emergency ambulance services to the City of Tulare and the Tipton, Pixley and Earlimart areas of Tulare County. It employs paramedics, emergency medical technicians (EMT), clerical staff, and an IT technician. Employees are paid on an hourly basis every two weeks. Martinez worked as a Lifestar EMT for about 10 months from September 2019 to July 2020. On July 5, 2023, he filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former employees of Lifestar. He alleged Lifestar miscalculated the "regular rate of pay" (Lab. Code, Section 510, subd. (a)) of approximately 135 workers by excluding nondiscretionary bonuses, which caused Lifestar to underpay overtime, double time, and premiums for meal and rest periods. Four months later, Martinez filed a first amended class action complaint (FAC), which is the operative pleading in this appeal. The FAC contains claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, unfair business practices, and civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code, Section 2698, et seq.). It alleges that Martinez, the class members, and aggrieved employees received nondiscretionary bonuses that Lifestar failed to include when calculating the correct overtime rate of pay, meal break premium rate of pay, and sick day rate of pay, which caused Martinez and the class members to be underpaid. In February 2025, Martinez filed a motion for class certification that proposed (1) a "regular rate" class consisting of all current and former hourly employees who were paid one or more of the 10 bonuses identified in Lifestar's time and pay data and whose bonuses were not included the regular rate of pay Lifestar used to calculate the employee’s overtime and premium pay for noncomplying meal and rest breaks. Martinez proposed a "Waiting Time Penalties Subclass" of the regular rate class consisting for employees whose employment with Lifestar ended at any time between July 5, 2020, to the present." The claims of this subclass addressed the failure to timely pay accurate final wages in compliance with Labor Code sections 201 through 203. Martinez also proposed a "wage statement" class of current and former employees who worked for Lifestar from July 5, 2022, to the present and received one or more of the 10 bonuses. This class of claims addressed the failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in compliance with Labor Code section 226.7. The inaccuracies alleged are based on the failure to include bonuses in calculating the regular rate of pay. Martinez supported his class certification motion with declarations from himself, his attorney, and Teresa Fulimeni, M.A., an expert who has testified in many economic loss and wage and hour cases. Lifestar opposed class certification, arguing common questions of law or fact did not predominate and, furthermore, Martinez's claim was not typical of the proposed classes. It supported this argument by asserting it paid 10 types of bonuses, each type of bonus had its own criteria, Martinez was paid only one type of bonus, and he received that "EMS Bonus" only once. "EMS Bonus" is Lifestar's pay code for a bonus given to its employees in connection with National Emergency Medical Services Week. Lifestar's opposition to the motion for class certification was supported by a declaration of Brent Woodward, one of its attorneys. Exhibits to Woodward's declaration included a portion of Lifestar's time and pay records produced in discovery and a table summarizing his analysis of those records. The trial court filed a six-page ruling denying the class certification motion. It concluded Martinez had failed to establish that he has claims typical of the proposed class based on the submitted bonus/regular-rate-of-pay class theory. The ruling explicitly stated the court did not reach the issues of whether different factual questions arise with respect to each of the 10 types of bonuses and, as a result, whether the proposed class action might not be 'one of common or general interest.' Martinez appeals the denial of his motion for class certification of wage and hour claims against his former employer. He contends the trial court failed to consider all the evidence presented in connection with the motion. Judge Franson concludes the trial court committed legal error in its analysis of whether a unique defense defeated the typicality of Martinez's claim. It opines that Lifestar's arguments that Martinez's EMS Bonus was properly excluded from his regular rate of pay because it was in the nature of a gift, was discretionary, or both, are not unique to Martinez. Those arguments apply to all EMS Bonuses paid to Lifestar's other employees for National Emergency Medical Services Week and, therefore, are not unique to Martinez. Judge Franson therefore reverses the order denying class certification. In light of the deference given to trial courts considering class certification and the number of criteria that do not overlap with typicality and were not addressed in the trial court's stated reasons, Judge Franson concludes the better course is to remand the matter for further consideration of the class certification motion in light of his Opinion. The analysis conducted on remand may include whether to narrow the proposed class or whether to create subclasses for one or more types of bonuses. The Appellant will recover his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/c0u2o9y. Moon Law Group, H. Scott Leviant -- hsleviant@moonlawgroup.com -- Kane Moon -- kmoon@moonlawgroup.com -- Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan -- lilit@moonlawgroup.com -- and Chancellor D. Nobles for Plaintiff and Appellant. Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com -- and Brent C. Woodward for Defendant and Respondent. SIMILARWEB INC: Disseminates Cellular Telephone Numbers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW GARGUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIMILARWEB, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02023 (D. Colo., May 11, 2026) is a class action complaint against Similarweb asserting violations of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. These allegations are grounded in counsel's investigation and are presented upon information and belief, except for those directly concerning Plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge. The complaint seeks redress for Similarweb's pervasive practice of compiling and commercially disseminating the cellular telephone numbers of Colorado residents without their explicit, affirmative consent. Similarweb is a sales intelligence platform operating the publicly accessible and subscription-based directory available at similarweb.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam C. York, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 1021 West Adams St., Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: adam@crosnerlegal.com SINGULARITY FUTURE: Settlement Negotiations Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Singularity Future Technology Ltd. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that on July 13, 2025, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement where pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for the settlement payment and subject to final approval by the Court, all plaintiffs in the class action would release the company and the other defendants on all claims. On December 9, 2022, Piero Crivellaro, purportedly on behalf of the persons or entities who purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of the Company between February 2021 and November 2022, brought a putative class action, "Crivellaro v. Singularity Future Technology Ltd.," 22-cv-7499-BMC, against the company and a dozen related persons and entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws by the company and sought damages, plus interest, costs, fees, and attorneys' fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss on November 20, 2023 and on December 17, 2024, the court issued an order that partially denied the motions to dismiss filed by the company and its former chief executive officer, Yang Jie, arising from various statements made by Yang Jie about two allegedly fraudulent transactions, and the rest of the motions were granted. On January 2, 2025, the company filed an answer to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint and on May 29, 2025, the company and the lead plaintiffs in the class action executed a binding term sheet setting forth the material terms of their proposed settlement on a class-wide basis. On July 13, 2025, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the Settlement Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for the settlement payment and subject to final approval by the Court, all plaintiffs in the class action would release the Company and the other defendants on all claims. The Settlement Payment included a cash payment of $3,000,000 and 6,500,000 freely tradable shares of the company's common stock, which were to be issued pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, subject to the court's approval of the settlement. In the event of a reverse stock split prior to the effectiveness of the settlement, the number of Settlement Shares and/or the put option purchase price was to be reformulated so that the value of the Settlement Shares/put option would not be less than $5,850,000 as of the effectiveness of the settlement. The settlement class had the right to sell all or a portion of the unsold Settlement Shares back to the company at $0.85 per share if the 10-trading-day average closing price immediately prior to the exercise of the put option fell below $0.85 before the class lead counsel sold the Settlement Shares. The company agreed to maintain a cash balance of $3,250,000 in a dedicated escrow account to mitigate the risk that it would be unable to satisfy the put option. On October 9, 2025, the company wired $2,000,000, which were loans from unrelated parties, as part of the settlement cash payment to the escrow account set forth in the Settlement Agreement in the class action lawsuit. On October 31, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. A fairness hearing was initially set by the court for December 7, 2025 but was adjourned to March 9, 2026, and on January 20, 2026, the company filed a letter motion for a pre-motion conference with the court regarding its unopposed motion for approval of issuance of shares in connection with the Settlement Agreement. On March 9, 2026, the court held a fairness hearing regarding the class action settlement during which the court denied Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement without prejudice, denied as moot (1) Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards, (2) Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Amended and Restated Settlement Fund Escrow Agreement, and (3) Singularity's Motion for Approval of issuance of shares pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(10) (D.E. 158), and held that the temporary restraining order remains in place. The court also directed the parties to advise the court by April 8, 2026, in a joint letter, how they intended to proceed in light of the court's ruling, including (1) moving forward with trial, (2) renewing the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement once Singularity has completed payment, or (3) amending the settlement. The $8.85 million Settlement Agreement therefore became null and void and was terminated. Pursuant to ASC 450-20-25-2, the company reassessed the class action settlement and determined that the class action settlement liability should be $4 million (i.e., $6 million less $2 million in the escrow account) as of March 31, 2026, and accordingly, $4.85 million of class action settlement expenses were reversed. The company disclosed that net cash used in operating activities was approximately $21.2 million for the nine months ended March 31, 2026, which was primarily attributable to a net loss of approximately $10.6 million and payment of approximately $19.4 million to suppliers for commodity trading, partially offset by class action settlement of approximately $8.9 million. Singularity Future Technology Ltd. is a technology company that has pursued logistics, shipping, and digital-asset-related initiatives. The company is headquartered in the United States and its common stock is publicly traded. SKYRISE RESTORATION: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKYRISE RESTORATION GROUP INCORPORATED, GREY STONE RESTORATION CORP., and BILAL RIAZ, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-04000 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Luis Gonzalez is an adult individual who worked for Defendants in New York as a non-exempt employee. The Defendants are commercial roofing contractors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com SMG FOOD: Class Cert Hearing in Ordono Suit Continued to Oct. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORDONO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SMG FOOD & BEVERAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order approving and adopting the Parties' stipulation as follows: Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued at least 120 days to Oct. 15, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. Hearing on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is continued at least 120 days to Oct. 15, 2026 at 9:30 a.m., and held remotely, subject to change depending on the Court's availability. The Plaintiff's deadline to oppose is continued to Sept. 17, 2026. The Defendants' deadline to reply is continued to Sept. 24, 2026. On March 16, 2026, the Court entered an order setting the hearing for class certification on June 11, 2026 On April 30, 2026, the Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, with a hearing date of June 4, 2026. The Plaintiff has not yet filed his opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (due May 14, 2026) and the Defendants have not yet filed their reply (due May 21, 2026). SMG provides contracted food service, catering, and management for venues, nonprofits, and businesses. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dsBDzI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW, P.C. 6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 845-7801 E-mail: skroll@krollpc.com SMG FOOD: Parties Seek to Continue Hearing on Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORDONO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SMG FOOD & BEVERAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to: 1. Continue the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by 120 days to a date that is convenient for the Court; 2. Continue the briefing schedule and hearing for the Defendants' motion for summary judgment by 120 days to a date that is convenient for the Court. 3. Schedule the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the hearing on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment so that they are both heard on the same date. The Parties have an ongoing discovery disagreement. The Plaintiff contends that the discovery disagreement impacts his ability to oppose the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Parties have met and conferred and are making progress towards resolving the discovery disagreement. The Parties are also considering participating in a mediation in the next few months; On March 16, 2026, the Court entered an order setting the hearing for class certification on June 11, 2026. SMG provides contracted food service, catering, and management for venues, nonprofits, and businesses. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3D8uTA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW, P.C. 6230 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 845-7801 E-mail: skroll@krollpc.com SOUTHWOOD REALTY: Bid to Appeal "Hubbard" Certification Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew E. Orso of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, in the case captioned Justin Hubbard, Plaintiff, v. Southwood Realty Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00481-MEO-DCK (W.D.N.C.), denied plaintiff's motion for leave to certify for interlocutory appeal the court's prior order denying conditional certification in this FLSA collective action. The order is a Memorandum and Order dated May 14, 2026. The court had previously denied plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and to Provide Notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), adopting the Fifth Circuit's framework from Swales v. KLLM Transport Services for assessing whether putative plaintiffs are similarly situated, and directed the parties to begin limited discovery. Certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) requires that the order involve a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The court found the third element unsatisfied. Plaintiff argued that reversal would bear heavily on settlement pressure and the likelihood of early resolution. The court declined to further one side's potential settlement posture at the expense of a just and efficient resolution of the merits. According to the Court "Granting the motion would impose substantial delay to the ongoing limited discovery process, and regardless of the outcome on appeal, the case would return to the court for further proceedings. The court therefore denied the motion. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 14, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U9nmCl from PacerMonitor.com. Defendant Southwood Realty Company is represented by: Kevin Scott Joyner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Email: kevin.joyner@ogletree.com Charlotte Claire Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Email: charlotte.smith@ogletree.com Plaintiff Justin Hubbard is represented by: John Joseph Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP Email: rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com SPIRIT AVIATION: Dionne Seeks to Recover Damages Under WARN Act --------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN DIONNE, ALEXA GARCIA, KENNETH J. MANGIONE, NICOLE ALI, BILLY MOSS, and ERICK SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPIRIT AVIATION HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 26-01043-shl (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees of Defendant Spirit to recover damages equaling 60 days' pay and ERISA benefits due pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. On May 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees received an email sent from David Davis, Chief Executive Officer of Spirit, stating that Spirit had decided to cease operations immediately. Approximately 17,000 employees were suddenly without jobs or benefits and still owed pay for their accrued sick leave and vacation time. Accordingly, Spirit failed to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees with at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination, in violation of the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees are entitled to recover a judgment equal to their wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days. Spirit was a major American airline carrier that served the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean, offering discount, no-frills fares.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd E. Duffy, Esq. TODD E. DUFFY, PLLC 132 W 31st St., 9th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 729-5832 - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Andrew Lapat, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 SPROUT SOCIAL: Class and Derivative Actions Filed ------------------------------------------------- Sprout Social, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that is is facing securities suits pertaining to its business operations and market prospects filed with the SEC. The company was named, along with certain of its executives, in two putative securities fraud class action cases filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois beginning on May 13, 2024, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The first action, captioned "Munch v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al.," was filed on May 13, 2024 and alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of fact relating to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including purported integration challenges arising from the company's August 2023 acquisition of Tagger Media, Inc., the company's ability to service and the viability of its strategic plan to focus on the enterprise market, and that, as a result, the Company's 2024 financial guidance was required to be adjusted downward. The Munch complaint sought damages and costs on behalf of a putative class of company stockholders from November 3, 2023 through and including May 2, 2024. The second case, captioned City of "Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System v. Sprout Social, Inc., et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 2, 2024 and asserted claims under the same legal provisions as the Munch action. On January 24, 2025, the City of Baltimore filed an amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which retained the original defendants but added Jason Rechel, the Company's former head of Investor Relations, as an individual defendant. In addition, on Sept. 3, 2024, a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit captioned "Hannaway v. Sprout Social, Inc. et al." was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company’s directors and certain officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented facts about the company's business, operations and prospects, including that the company's sales and revenue results were not indicative of its growth as it transitioned to an enterprise sales cycle and that the company was unable to sell to enterprise customers and thus overpaid for, and faced integration challenges with respect to, Tagger, and that, as a result, the Company faced longer sales cycles and a slowing pipeline, requiring a downward revision of its 2024 guidance. Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts federal claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 21D of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, as well as state law claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, and aiding and abetting. Sprout Social, Inc. is a provider of cloud-based social media management software that enables organizations to manage social presence, engage audiences, and analyze performance across social platforms. The company serves a range of customers from small businesses to large enterprises across multiple industries. STADIUM CASINO: Cringle Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sean Cringle, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated v. Stadium Casino RE, LLC d/b/a Live! Casino Pittsburgh d/b/a LIVE! Casino and Hotel Philadelphia and STADIUM CASINO WESTMORELAND RE, LLC d/b/a Live! Casino Pittsburgh, Case No. 260400805 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03133. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims to have been injured from a cyberattack (the "Cyberattack") against Defendants in or around March 2026. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard his personally identifiable information from hackers, resulting in the Cyberattack. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: Defendants provided inadequate notice to him; Defendants knew or should have known of the risk of a data breach; Defendants failed to comply with Federal Trade Commission guidelines; Defendants failed to comply with industry standards; Defendants breached their duty to safeguard his personal information; and he is at an increased and substantial risk of fraud and identity theft as a result.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Kramer, Esq. KANE PUGH KNOELL TROY & KRAMER, LLP 4 Sentry Parkway East, Suite 100 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: 610-275-2000 x 1115 Fax: 610-275-2018 Email: akramer@kanepugh.com STATE FARM: Dismissal of Pearce v. SF Mutual and SF Fire Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEITH PEARCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JANET PEARCE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-14081 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims against State Farm Fire & Casualty Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Keith and Janet Pearce, Florida residents, sought and obtained insurance coverage from State Farm for a diamond pendant. When they requested a refund of certain premiums following a claim for total loss, State Farm refused to pay. In the ensuing putative class action lawsuit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the Pearces filed a series of complaints naming different State Farm entities as defendants: the initial complaint named State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ("SF Fire"), and State Farm Florida Insurance Company ("SF Florida"); then the first amended complaint named State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("SF Mutual") and SF Florida; and finally the second amended complaint named SF Florida and SF Fire. According to the Pearces' complaints, this case arises from an insurance agreement between Keith and Janet Pearce and State Farm Florida, State Farm Mutual, and/or State Farm Fire. In January 2016, State Farm issued the Pearces a Personal Article Policy for a diamond pendant, which had an appraised value of $34,496. The policy required payment of the item's full replacement cost in the event of total loss, along with a refund of any unearned premiums. After the pendant was stolen in 2021, the insurer paid the replacement value but did not refund the unearned premiums, leading the Pearces to file suit over that remaining amount. The Pearces initially sued State Farm General Insurance Company, SF Fire, and SF Florida, bringing claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment on behalf of Keith Pearce and others similarly situated who were paid a total loss claim pursuant to a State Farm personal article policy but were not refunded State Farm's unearned premium as required by the policy terms. After the Defendants filed their first motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to adequately plead claims, the Pearces sought and received leave to file an amended complaint ("FAC"), which added Janet Pearce as a plaintiff and replaced Defendants SF General and SF Fire with SF Mutual, retaining SF Florida. The amended complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against both SF Mutual and SF Florida. The Defendants again moved to dismiss the Pearces' FAC for lack of jurisdiction and failure to adequately plead claims, and the district court granted their motion. The district court found that the breach of contract claim against SF Mutual failed because the agreement clearly identified SF Florida, not SF Mutual, as the insurer, and state law did not support holding SF Mutual liable as SF Florida’s principal. The court also ruled that the unjust enrichment claim failed because the Pearces did not adequately allege that SF Mutual received any benefit from the contract. As a result, the claims against SF Mutual were dismissed with prejudice. Because the Pearces—the only named Plaintiffs—and the only remaining defendant were all citizens of Florida, the district court dismissed the claims against SF Florida for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the Pearces' preexisting request to amend their complaint, but it allowed them to refile that motion to correct the jurisdictional gaps. The Pearces then requested and received permission to file their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which replaced SF Mutual with SF Fire as a defendant and renewed breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against both SF Fire and SF Florida. The Defendants once again moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and the district court granted their motion. The court again found that the agreement clearly identified SF Florida as the insurer and dismissed the breach of contract claim against SF Fire. It also ruled that the Pearces failed to plausibly allege that SF Fire improperly retained any benefit, leading to dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. Because only Florida plaintiffs and a Florida defendant remained, the court dismissed the claims against SF Florida without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Pearces timely appealed. On appeal, they argue that they adequately alleged an apparent agency claim against SF Mutual, that the agreement either clearly identified SF Fire as a contracting party or was at least ambiguous on that issue, and that they sufficiently stated an unjust enrichment claim against SF Mutual. They also contend the district court wrongly reevaluated CAFA jurisdiction after dismissing the claims against SF Mutual and SF Fire. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the claims against SF Mutual and SF Fire, finding that branding alone was not enough to show apparent agency, and that the agreement clearly identified SF Florida as the insurer, defeating the contract claims against those entities. It also rejected the unjust enrichment claim because there was no independent basis showing it would be unfair for SF Mutual to keep the premiums. The court, however, vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract claims against SF Florida and sent the case back for a new CAFA jurisdiction analysis. The Eleventh Circuit declined to decide in the first instance whether the Pearces’ claims against SF Mutual and SF Fire were frivolous, noting that the issue is highly fact-intensive. Instead, it remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the complaints, as filed, supported CAFA jurisdiction and whether the claims against SF Mutual and SF Fire were frivolous or deficient at the time of filing. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/czkfip7 STEAK 48 BEVERLY HILLS: Ojeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steak 48 Beverly Hills LLC. The case is styled as Marcos A. Ojeda, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Steak 48 Beverly Hills LLC, Case No. 26STCV14623 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Steak 48 Beverly Hills LLC -- https://www.steak48.com/ -- is a high-end steakhouse serving prime cuts, seafood & shellfish in an elegant, modern venue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Class, Derivative Actions Filed ------------------------------------------------- StubHub Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated May 13, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that the company moved to dismiss several class action complaints filed against it and faces derivative suits over its Initial Public Offering (IPO). A putative securities class action filed on November 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "Salabaj v. StubHub Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-09776-JMF. The company and certain of its officers and directors are among the defendants in this action. In November 2025, the plaintiff brought claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its September 2025 IPO. Following the lead plaintiff appointment process, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 6, 2026. The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-286000), as amended, and the final prospectus filed with the SEC on September 17, 2025 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) under the Securities Act, in connection with its IPO, contained false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain information. The alleged omissions and misstatements relate, among other things, to (i) its near-term market opportunity in the original issuance market, including the readiness of its open distribution platform for broad adoption and the imminency of its expansion into this market, (ii) its near-term growth prospects for advertising, and (iii) its free cash flow and other financial metrics. The company moved to dismiss this. Additionally, the Company has been named as a nominal defendant in related derivative actions filed on December 9 and December 17, 2025, and April 10, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These derivative actions are captioned "Junco v. Baker, et al.," Case No. 2:25-cv-10208-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2025), "Cohen v. Baker, et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-10445-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025) and "Chen v. Baker, et al.," Case No. 1:26-cv-02986-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2026), respectively. Separately, on March 11, 2026, a related derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, captioned "Karten v. Baker, et al.," C.A. No. 2026-0337-BWD (Del. Ch. Mar. 11, 2026). Plaintiffs in these actions seek monetary damages and declaratory relief for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and/or for contribution against certain of the company's officers and/or directors pursuant to Section 11(f) of the Securities Act and Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Junco and Cohen Actions have been consolidated into one action and are presently stayed. The parties in the Chen Action have agreed to have that case consolidated with the Junco and Cohen Actions, and the Karten Action is also presently stayed. StubHub Holdings, Inc. operates a global online marketplace that connects fans with events by enabling users to buy and sell tickets for sports, concerts, theater, and other live entertainment. The company leverages technology and partnerships with rights holders to facilitate primary and secondary ticket distribution across multiple geographies. STYL RESIDENTIAL: Violates Landlord Tenant Laws, Gordon Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- HALEY GORDON, individually and for all others similarly situated v. STYL RESIDENTIAL CA, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-04699 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) is class action on behalf of Plaintiff and the two Classes for violating landlord tenant laws and consumer protection laws: -- Unlawful Retention of Residential Security Deposits, -- Unlawful Liquidated Damages, -- Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, -- Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, -- Violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act The Plaintiff was a tenant at Defendant's apartment complex in Oakland, California. The Defendant is a multifamily property management company that operates many apartment communities throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. Harrison J. Lynch, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com Harrison@ShayLegal.com SUN LIFE: Class Cert Bid in Genesett Suit Due June 19 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesett Corporation v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Case No. 1:23-cv-12276 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 03, 2023), the Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All non-expert depositions and fact discovery must be completed by May 29, 2026 -- Deadline to complete mediation: May 26, 2026 -- Class certification motion and Plaintiff's opening expert reports: June 19, 2026 -- Sun Life's class certification opposition, rebuttal expert reports, and opening expert reports on issues on which Sun Life bears the burden of proof: July 20, 2026 -- Plaintiff's class certification reply and Plaintiff's rebuttal and reply expert reports: August 10, 2026. -- Sun Life's reply expert reports on issues on which Sun Life bears the burden of proof: August 24, 2026 -- Completion of expert depositions and expert discovery: September 11, 2026 -- Subsequent deadlines per Docket No. 69 remain the same. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. The Defendant provides life insurance, health insurance, wealth management, and asset management solutions.[CC] SUNDEK NATIONAL: Bid to Certify Settlement Class Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KEITH DILLON AND SANDRA MARIE DILLON, TRUSTEES OF THE MICHAEL KEITH DILLON AND SANDRA MARIE DILLON TRUST U/T/D SEPTEMBER 27, 2023, JOSEPH ODOM, ROBERT P. MASTROMARINO, LYNN M. MASTROMARINO, SHARON H. MOODY, CHRISTOPHER T. MOODY, WILLIAM A. LAVOICE, DORA ALDERSON, MARY ANN COUGHLIN, MICHAEL HEDGE, and JULIE HEDGE, v. SUNDEK NATIONAL ACCOUNTS d/b/a CGI COMMERCIAL, BAREFOOT RESORT YACHT CLUB VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04410-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson III entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Certify Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approve Settlement, Authorize Class Notice, and Schedule Fairness Hearing: -- The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "All persons and entities that own a condominium unit at the Barefoot Resort Yacht Club Villas Condominium ("Property") in the City of North Myrtle Beach, Horry County, South Carolina ("the Settlement Class" or "Class Members")." Excluded from the Class are: (a) any Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) Defendants and any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest or which have a controlling interest in the Defendants and their legal representatives, assigns and successors of the Defendants and the Defendants' current or former employees, investors, members, or officers; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class. -- The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Joseph Odom, Robert P. Mastromarino, Lynn M. Mastromarino, Sharon H. Moody, Christopher T. Moody, William LaVoice, Dora Alderson, Michael Hedge, and Julie Hedge as class representatives for settlement purposes only. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel for settlement purposes under Rule 23(g). -- The Court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement for purposes of issuing class notice and conducting a final approval hearing. Preliminary approval is without prejudice to the Court's further consideration at final approval of whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e). Nothing in this Order resolves any claims against the non-settling defendants, including Sundek National Accounts d/b/a CGI Commercial, Thomas E. Sepulveda d/b/a Stucco Texas, Thomas E. Sepulveda d/b/a Contractors Design & Installation, Inc., Thomas E. Sepulveda individually, Alfredo Chaparro d/b/a Superior Custom Painting & Design, LLC, or Alfredo Chaparro individually. The case arises from alleged construction defects and related maintenance, repair, design, construction, and management issues at the Barefoot Resort Yacht Club Villas Horizontal Property Regime in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (the "Property"). The Property consists of three condominium buildings containing 145 residential units. The proposed settlement provides for total settlement proceeds of $1,000,000.00. The Defendants include STO CORP., JENKINS HANCOCK & SIDES ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS ENGINEERING, INC. f/k/a JENKINS HANCOCK & SIDES ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC., RANDY L. SIDES, THOMAS E. SEPULVEDA d/b/a STUCCO TEXAS, THOMAS E. SEPULVEDA d/b/a CONTRACTORS DESIGN & INSTALLATION, INC., THOMAS E. SEPULVEDA, Individually, ALFREDO CHAPARRO d/b/a SUPERIOR CUSTOM PAINTING & DESIGN, LLC, and ALFREDO CHAPARRO, Individually. Sundek provides architectural concrete services A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=54cBiU at no extra charge.[CC] SUPER MICRO: Faces Chung Class Suit Over Common Stock Value Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- BUNDY CHUNG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., CHARLES LIANG, DAVID WEIGAND, and YIH-SHYAN "WALLY" LIAW, Case No. 5:26-cv-04394 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2026) seeks relief on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro common stock during the period between February 2, 2024 and March 19, 2026, inclusive pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendant's flagship product are servers that integrate chips manufactured by Nvidia Corporation, and are capable of the heavy parallel computing that is need for AI training. Throughout the Class Period, Nvidia chips were subject to U.S. government export control laws that Super Micro and certain of the Company's senior officers (sought to skirt by secretly and illegally selling Super Micro servers, embedded with Nvidia chips, to China. It is a U.S. national security priority to limit China's aggressively developing AI computing abilities. Beginning in October 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce, through its Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), implemented license requirements effectively barring the sale of certain American hardware that is core to expanding AI infrastructure -- including certain Nvidia chips -- to China and Hong Kong. License applications were subject to review under a presumption of denial. Defendants illegally sold servers containing such chips to China, and in doing so, threatened American national security. To conceal this illegal scheme and maintain an artificially inflated stock price, Defendants carried out a two-phase campaign of deception -- both phases constituting a singular, continuous fraud designed to hide the export violations from investors, says the suit. In the first phase, from February 2024 through August 2024, the Defendants affirmed Super Micro's compliance with U.S. export control laws. In the second phase, from approximately December 2024 through February 2026, after Super Micro missed important SEC filing deadlines, the Company's auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, resigned in part due to its concerns over at least eleven specific export transactions, and the Company's Special Committee began actively investigating Super Micro's compliance with relevant U.S. export laws and regulations -- placing Defendants' prior compliance claims in question -- Defendants shifted to active minimization and misdirection, selectively acknowledging certain problems while concealing the true scope of the ongoing conspiracy. Throughout both phases, Defendants made repeated false and misleading statements to investors, the suit says. News of the Indictment drove the price of Super Micro shares down $10.26 (-33%) the next day. As a result of Defendants' actions detailed herein, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Super Micro common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit further asserts. Super Micro is a technology company that builds and sells specialized computers designed to process requests, store data, run applications, and serve other computers -- called, servers. Super Micro's servers are used to power data centers for companies training large artificial intelligence models or running cloud computing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com SUREFIRE CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ford Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Surefire Creative LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01593 (N.D. Ill., May 16, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Website, https://antlerrings.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. He uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to individuals who meet the legal definition of blindness, in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some individuals who meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view Finnish and Scandinavian inspired products, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SWEET BASIL: Class Cert Responses in Liu Extended to May 25 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Liu v. Sweet Basil Fairfield LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01436 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class: - Responses due by May 25, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sweet Basil is a Pan-Asian restaurant featuring a sushi bar plus sake, imported beers & cocktails.[CC] SWISSPORT USA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Morgan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ GIAEL MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05422 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid straight-time wages, statutory damages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The Defendant employs hourly-paid employees in Illinois and throughout the United States, including ramp agents and other airport operations employees, to provide ground-handling, cargo-handling, ramp, baggage, warehouse, clerical, and related airport-support services at Chicago O'Hare International Airport and other airport locations. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has maintained common timekeeping, meal-period, pre-shift/post-shift, overtime-rate, and biometric timeclock practices that deprive hourly-paid employees of wages and statutory protections required by federal and Illinois law. Hourly-paid employees also receive remuneration in addition to base hourly pay, including lead pay, shift pay, and similar differentials, premiums, incentives, or other non-discretionary compensation. However, the Defendant pays overtime compensation to hourly-paid employees at rates that do not always include all remuneration required to be included in the regular rate. As a result, hourly-paid employees receive less than one-and-one-half times their lawful regular rate for overtime hours worked. Defendant also maintains meal-period practices that automatically deduct time from hourly-paid employees' recorded hours. Hourly-paid employees do not always receive bona fide, uninterrupted meal periods free from work duties, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks relief under the FLSA for himself and similarly situated employees who elect to opt in to this action, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for Illinois classes whose claims arise from Defendant's common policies and practices. Plaintiff Giael Morgan worked for Defendant as a Ramp Agent at Chicago O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois September 2024 through May 2025. Defendant Swissport USA, Inc. is an airport ground-services and cargo-handling contractor, providing airport ground-handling, cargo-handling, ramp, baggage, fueling, and related aviation-support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com SWITCHGEAR POWER: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hansen v. Switchgear Power Systems LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01453 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Sept. 22, 2025), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to Aug. 13, 2026, for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification and for court-authorized notice. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Switchgear manufactures custom switchgear and electrical power distribution equipment.[CC] TACO BELL: Burton Class Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as DANIEL BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACO BELL CORP. d/b/a TACO BELL, Defendant, Case No. 2616-CV12169, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00398-JAM to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA") and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") and for unjust enrichment, and seeks to represent a putative class of consumers who, over a multi-year period dating back to 2021, purchased similar drinks during the same promotional window at Taco Bell locations in Kansas and Missouri. Taco Bell Corporation is an American multinational chain of fast food restaurants.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. McAndrews, Esq. Amanda Lewandowski, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: 816.474.8100 Facsimile: 816.474.3216 E-mail: pmcandrews@spencerfane.com alewandowski@spencerfane.com TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Settlement in Arbuckle Likely to Get Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARBUCKLE FUNDING, LLC, and BRIGHTON TRUSTEES LLC, on behalf of and as Trustee for COOK STREET MASTER TRUST III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE CO. and TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE INSURANCE CO., Case No. 7:23-cv-07972-CS-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Seibel entered an order as follows: The Court will direct notice to Premium Tax Settlement Class Members because it finds that it likely will be able to approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court is likely to find that the Premium Tax Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (ii) Plaintiffs' claims present common issues that are typical of the Premium Tax Settlement Class; (iii) Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the Premium Tax Settlement Class; and (iv) common issues predominate over any individual issues affecting the Premium Tax Settlement Class Members. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs' interests are aligned with the interests of all other Premium Tax Settlement Class Members. The Court also finds that resolution of Counts JI and HJ of the FAC on a class basis for purposes of the Settlement is superior to other means of resolution. The Court appoints Plaintiffs as class representatives and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel for settlement purposes. The Court finds that it will likely be able to approve the Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2), and therefore preliminarily approves the Settlement as set forth in the Premium Tax Settlement Agreement, including the Released Claims contained therein, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Premium Tax Settlement Class under the relevant factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2) and City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), subject to the right of any Premium Tax Settlement Class Member to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Premium Tax Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why a final judgment dismissing Counts II and III of the Action against Defendants and ordering the release of the Released Claims against Releasees should not be entered after due and adequate notice to the Premium Tax Settlement Class as set forth in the-Premium Tax Settlement Agreement and after a Final Approval Hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, this preliminary approval pertains exclusively to the Premium Tax Claims and does not affect, prejudice, or otherwise apply to the Excluded Claims, including the COI Claim, which shall continue to be litigated independently by Arbuckle Funding and Talcott Resolution Life & Annuity Insurance Company. The Court finds that the Premium Tax Settlement Agreement was entered into at arm's length by highly experienced counsel and is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness that notice of the Settlement should be given as provided in the Premium Tax Settlement Agreement. The Court appoints IND as the Claims Administrator. Funds required to pay the Claims Administrator shall be paid from the Escrow Account as they become due as set forth in the Premium Tax Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator shall be responsible for receiving requests for exclusion from the Premium Tax Settlement Class Members and performing all duties set forth in the Premium Tax Settlement Agreement. Talcott Resolution is a life insurance and annuity company and solutions-provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BW0om9 at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORPORATION: Sierra Files Suit Over Mislabeled Food Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR SIERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02799-AYS (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for false and misleading labeling and advertisement of its food products. The complaint relates that the Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that the Products are "yogurt covered." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, Defendant's claims are false. The Products are not made with yogurt, yogurt powder or any similar ingredient. Instead, the "confectionary coating" in the Products is made exclusively from sugar, palm kernel oil, nonfat milk powder, whole milk powder, whey powder, palm oil, soy lecithin and vanilla. These ingredients do not provide the health benefits that yogurt does. To the contrary, they are linked to numerous health ailments. The Defendant has profited enormously from its false and misleading representations. Plaintiff and Class members suffered ascertainable loss as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violations in that: (i) they would not have purchased the Products had they known the truth; and (ii) they overpaid for the Products on account of the misrepresentations and omissions. As a result, Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged either in the full amount of the purchase price of the Products or in the difference in value between the Products as warranted and the Products as actually sold, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law. He seeks monetary relief for Defendant's deceptive and misleading product ads and labels. Plaintiff Victor Sierra has purchased Defendant's "yogurt covered" foods numerous times during the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant Target Corporation formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells "yogurt covered" food products throughout the United States, including in New York. Target sells the Products under various brand names: Favorite Day and Good & Gather brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces Fratis Over Deceptive Hose Products Promo ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY FRATIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TELEBRANDS CORP. dba BULBHEAD, a New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 26CV011005 (Cal., Super., Sacramento Cty., May 7, 2026) is a consumer protection action seeking to remedy the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive business practices in connection with misleading sale promotions of Defendant's Copper Pocket Hose Products. The Defendant own and manage separate websites: https://www.pockethosecopper.com/, https://www.copperbullethose.com/, and https://www.getcopperhead.com. On each of these sites, the Defendant offers pricing purported to be limited-time or discounted offers that, in reality, are perpetual. The Defendant advertises its Products on the Websites using strikethrough prices intended to convey that consumers are receiving genuine price reductions. Discounts benefit both sellers and their customers—when they are legitimate discounts. However, advertising illusory or "fake" sales through false former pricing is deceptive and unlawful, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased a 50-foot Pocket Hose Copper Head and Pocket Hose Pocket Pivot from Defendant’s website www.pockethosecopper.com on or around June 24, 2025. The product Plaintiff purchased was advertised as being on sale for a limited time at the time of purchase. TELEBRANDS CORP. advertises and sells Copper Pocket Hose Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com TEMPUR WORLD: Wilson Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEMPUR WORLD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05194 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.sealy.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Tempur World, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 TERRITORIAL SEED: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Monica Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TERRITORIAL SEED COMPANY, an Oregon corporation d/b/a TERRITORIALSEED.COM, Case No. 26STCV10051 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05025. The Complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the putative class are entitled to "statutory penalties" under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), and asks that the Court award "statutory damages," Prayer for Relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Heather A. Antoine, Esq. Matthew D. Segal, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.447.0700 Facsimile: 916.447.4781 Email: heather.antoine@stoel.com matthew.segal@stoel.com TEX-TECH ENGINEERED: Williams Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Glenn Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEX-TECH ENGINEERED COMPOSITES LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV09890 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04926. The Complaint asserts causes of action for Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due During Employment and Upon Separation of Employment; and Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices..[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq. Sohin S. Gautam, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: cschreck@fisherphillips.com sgautam@fisherphillips.com TOLIN MECHANICAL: Lugo Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ANDRES LUGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOLIN MECHANICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026CV30771, was removed from the District Court, Denver County, Colorado to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on May 11, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02022 to the proceeding. The suit is Plaintiff Lugo's second attempt to hold Tolin responsible for purported damages resulting from a cyberattack launched by third-party criminals against Tolin. Tolin Mechanical Systems Company, LLC designs, installs and maintains commercial and industrial facility technical systems.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julia Roberts, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-9300 E-mail: jroberts@polsinelli.com TOPPOINT HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Rodriguez Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Toppoint Holdings Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that a labor dispute alleging violations of the New Jersey wage laws has been dismissed by the court for lack of prosecution. A class action lawsuit filed on January 12, 2024, by two drivers, Rainey Mejia Rodriguez and Frank Santana Rodriguez, against Toppoint Inc. and certain other parties, including Hok C. Chan, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, alleging misclassification of truck drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals who provided services in New Jersey from January 2018 through the date of the complaint. The complaint asserts violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, including claims of unlawful wage deductions and failure to pay overtime. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble and/or liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief, without specifying a dollar amount of damages. On July 27, 2024, August 26, 2024, and November 22, 2024, the court issued multiple orders dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. Upon a motion to reinstate the case filed on January 15, 2025, by the plaintiffs, the court reinstated the case on January 31, 2025. On May 1, 2025, Toppoint Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and a motion hearing was held on July 3, 2025. On June 6, 2025, the court dismissed the case without prejudice against Mr. Hok C. Chan for lack of prosecution. Toppoint Holdings Inc. is a logistics and transportation services company operating through various subsidiaries to provide freight and trucking solutions. The Company offers transportation, distribution, and related support services to commercial customers. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES: Cousin Sues Over Recent Cyberattack ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Cousin and Latoya Dixon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Total System Services LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00794-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 7, 2026), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack on Defendant's systems, which was announced by the notorious cybercriminal gang, Everest group, on or around May 2, 2026. This cyberattack resulted in a breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former consumers' personally identifying information ("PII" or "Sensitive Information.") The Defendant continues delaying notifying Class Members even though Plaintiffs and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of 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. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of Sensitive Information misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed thousands of its current and former Consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are data breach victims. Total System describes itself as "Leading-edge technology, proven expertise, at global scale. TSYS delivers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 928-4472 Email: dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com TRANSDEV SERVICES: Allen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Mayrie Allen, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2316-CV28580 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for DuPage County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on May 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05283. The Plaintiff's Petition alleges one count of alleged violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Transdev failed to provide her and other putative class members with a pre-adverse action notice in violation of FCRA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy S. Smith, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Email: jssmith@gibsondunn.com - and - Erin M. Choi, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201-2923 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: echoi@gibsondunn.com TRAVEL LEISURE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Peterson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAQUON PETERSON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TRAVEL + LEISURE RESORT DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01498 (D. Nev., May 14, 2026) is class action against Travel + Leisure pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On June 15, 2025, the Plaintiff applied for a Remote Outbound Reservations Sales Specialist Position with Defendant through an Indeed virtual hiring event. The Plaintiff was unaware the FCRA provided a right to receive a copy of the Consumer Report before the adverse action was taken by Defendant. The Plaintiff was also confused as to whether the information included in the Consumer Report could be challenged. As a result, the Plaintiff was denied the opportunity and ability to contest, correct, or explain the information in the Consumer Report before suffering the adverse action. The Plaintiff's attempt to respond to the adverse action was taken without the benefit of being able to review the Consumer Report and have a full and complete understanding of the report relied upon to take the adverse action. Denying Plaintiff employment, in whole or in part, based on information in the Consumer Report is an adverse action which creates an injury in law. The Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Consumer Report and a summary of rights under the FCRA prior to taking adverse employment action deprived Plaintiff of a critical opportunity to understand her rights and review, contest, explain and/or dispute the information being used against her. Accordingly, the Defendant's actions in violation of the FCRA are part of a pattern of practice undertaken with numerous other individuals. As such, the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. The Defendant is engaged in the business of vacation ownership, exchange networks, and leisure travel clubs globally and in the United States, including Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Iglody, Esq. IGLODY LAW PLLC 2580 St Rose Pkwy #330 Henderson, Nevada 89074 Telephone: (702) 425-5366 E-mail: lee@iglody.com - and - Ivana Lozo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 111 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1700 - 218 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (929) 303-7675 E-mail: ilozo@sirillp.com TREACE MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of McCluney Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that on April 11, 2025, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned "McCluney v. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. et al.," against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between May 8, 2023 and May 7, 2024, alleging that the company and certain of its current executives violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company failed to disclose the impact of competition on demand for and utilization of its products and the need to accelerate its plans to offer a new osteotomy product, and that its positive statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On July 1, 2025, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2025, and the company filed a motion to dismiss on September 5, 2025. The action is in the preliminary stage. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on designing, manufacturing, and marketing surgical systems and related products for the treatment of bunions and other foot and ankle conditions. The Company primarily serves orthopedic surgeons and healthcare providers in the United States and international markets. TYOGA CONTAINER: Janecek Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & PMWA -------------------------------------------------------------- FAWN JANECEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYOGA CONTAINER COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-01342-MWB (M.D. Pa., May 15, 2026) contends that the Defendant has unlawfully failed to pay her and other similarly-situated hourly employees overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant who is employed in the position of Machine Operator. During the course of their employment, the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and Putative Class Members were not paid an overtime premium at one and a half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Tyoga is a packaging and containers company providing corrugated packaging and transit protection solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Groh, Esq. Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com UNITED HEALTH: Life Learning Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Life Learning Counseling PLLC, Anew U Counseling Services, PLLC, and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00297 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02504-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC 2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 292-6676 Fax: (888) 316-3489 Email: jean@jsmlawoffice.com The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan Edward Schulz, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP Hearst Tower 214 N. Tryon Street, Suite 3700 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 338-6127 Fax: (704) 338-6076 Email: jschulz@bradley.com UNITED HEALTH: Parker Medical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Parker Medical Center Limited, and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02663 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02502-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC 7508 N 59th Ave. Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (623) 826-5593 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - Melissa A Gardner, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: (415) 956-1000 ext.2209 The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Malham, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - PHOENIX, AZ 2325 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (205) 383-8100 Email: malham.sarah@dorsey.com UNITED HEALTH: Therapy My Way Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Therapy My Way Psychology P.C., Aurora Counseling Services LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02305 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02503-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Parker Hutchinson, Esq. 136 Madison Avenue, Suite 541 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Fax: (510) 350-9701 Email: pnh@classlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Phoebe Anne Wilkinson, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 918-3010 Email: phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com UNITED HEALTH: Tiffany Kettermann Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Tiffany Kettermann, LLC, Hope and Harmony Counseling, LLC, William P. Maier MD PC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00749 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02505-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kboyd@mcnaul.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian T. Kiolbasa BALLARD SPAHR LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100 Portland, OR 97204-3158 Phone: (503) 778-2103 Fax: (503) 778-2200 Email: kiolbasab@ballardspahr.com UNITED RENTALS: Van Horst Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Van Horst General Contractors, LLC, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated v. United Rentals Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Herc Rentals Inc., HERC Holdings Inc., H&E Equipment Services Inc., Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, RB Global, Inc., Rouse Services LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01204 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10499 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Clayton Act. United Rentals, Inc. -- https://www.unitedrentals.com/ -- is an American equipment rental company, with about 16 percent of the North American market share as of 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq. AETON LAW PARTNERS LLP 311 Centerpoint Drive Middletown, CT 06457 Phone: (860) 724-2160 Email: jms@aetonlaw.com UNITED STATE OIL FUND: Class and Derivative Suits Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- United States Oil Fund, LP disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that it is currently facing class action and derivative suits over its SEC Disclosures on its market prospects. On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The court thereafter consolidated this with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption "In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740." These allegations stem from USO's disclosures and defendants' alleged actions in light of the extraordinary market conditions in 2020 that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaints seek, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorney's fees, and costs. All proceedings in "In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation" are stayed pending final disposition of the motion(s) to dismiss in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation. USCF, USO, and the other defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims in In re United States Oil Fund, LP Derivative Litigation. Separately, on April 6, 2022, USO and USCF were named as defendants in an action filed by Optimum Strategies Fund I, LP, a purported investor in call option contracts on USO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut at Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00511. This asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, challenging statements in registration statements that became effective in February 2020, March 2020, and April 20, 2020, as well as public statements between February 2020 and May 2020, in connection with extraordinary market conditions and related risks. On March 15, 2023, the court granted the USO defendants motion to dismiss the Optimum Strategies complaint. The court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's federal securities law claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, and dismissed that claim without prejudice. No notice of appeal was filed. United States Oil Fund, LP is an exchange-traded fund designed to track the daily price movements of West Texas Intermediate light, sweet crude oil. The fund issues units that trade on the NYSE Arca and is managed and operated by United States Commodity Funds LLC. UNITED STATES COMMODITY: Faces Mehan Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------- United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that a shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 10, 2020, purported shareholder Darshan Mehan filed a derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant USO against defendants USCF, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F. Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III. The Mehan complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of federal securities laws. It seeks, among other relief, to recover damages on behalf of USO, to implement corporate governance reforms, and to obtain attorneys fees and costs. The defendants dispute the allegations in the Mehan Action and intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in that derivative proceeding. United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP is an exchange-traded commodity pool that seeks to track, over time, the changes in percentage terms of the price of natural gas delivered at the Henry Hub, primarily through investments in natural gas-related futures contracts and other derivatives.solutions to institutional and individual investors worldwide. United States Commodity Funds LLC is its general partner. UNITED STATES: Must Oppose Benitez Class Cert Bid by June 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benitez et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02082 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 8, 2026), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered a briefing schedule order for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is as follows: -- Defendants shall file their opposition by June 5, 2026 -- Plaintiffs shall file their reply by June 19, 2026 -- The status conference regarding the parameters of oral argument on Plaintiffs' motions scheduled for June 5, 2026 is adjourned to June 18, 2026, at 11:00 A.M. -- The oral argument on Plaintiffs' motions scheduled for June 16, 2026 is adjourned to 6/25/2026 at 10:00 A.M. -- All other deadlines and the word limits in the Court's April 20, 2026 Order remain in place. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. The Defendant is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, comparable to interior ministries abroad.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Carter Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Meshweida Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00401 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01198-ADA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. The University of Phoenix -- https://www.phoenix.edu/ -- is an online college that is accredited, affordable, and has degrees that align to careers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan D. Waisnor, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Email: jfee@labaton.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND AND GREEN LLP PO Box 3835 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Phone: (415) 357-8900 Fax: (805) 543-0980 The Defendants are represented by: David A. Yudelson, Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH AND PROPHETE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 909-7775 Fax: (424) 465-6630 US NATURAL GAS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------- United States Natural Gas Fund, LP disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated securities suit over its market prospects disclosed in the SEC. On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York thereafter consolidated this with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption "In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740." These allegations stem from USO's disclosures and defendants' alleged actions in light of the extraordinary market conditions in 2020 that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaints seek, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorney's fees, and costs, and the plaintiffs in the Cantrell and AML Actions have marked their actions as related to the Lucas Class Action. United States Natural Gas Fund, LP is an exchange-traded fund that seeks to track, on a daily percentage basis, the performance of natural gas futures contracts. The fund is sponsored by United States Commodity Funds LLC and is designed to provide investors with exposure to movements in natural gas prices. USCIS: Bid to Reconsider August 8, 2025 Order Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YADIRA MARLEN BERRONES NIETO, et al., v. DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), Case No. 1:24-cv-00286-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to reconsider Aug. 8, 2025, Order. The Court appreciates the Defendant's contention that, in light of De Souza II, the Bona Fide Determination ("BFD") Plaintiffs cannot establish redressability, but notes that, unlike the court in De Souza II, this Court lacks an evidentiary basis to reach that same conclusion here. The Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion to reconsider its prior order on this ground. While the BFD Plaintiffs may ultimately be unable to establish standing at the summary judgment stage, they have adequately done so here. This case involves 196 Plaintiffs who are in the United States and have applied for "U Nonimmigrant Status," a temporary immigration status available for victims of certain crimes and their family members who aid in the investigation or prosecution of those crimes. USCIS administers the country's naturalization and immigration system. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XhoaT5 at no extra charge.[CC] VERSUM MATERIALS: Thomas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KEONDRE THOMAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERSUM MATERIALS US, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV487185, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-04219 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts these causes of action under the California Labor Code: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) Failure to provide required meal periods; (4) failure to provide required rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to reimburse employees for required business expenses; and (8) failure to pay sick pay wages. The Plaintiff further asserts unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code. Versum Materials US, LLC was founded in 2015. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of polishes and sanitation goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kara A. Ritter Cole, Esq. Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 VIRGIN GALACTIC: Faces Class, Derivative Suts --------------------------------------------- Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that it is currently facing several shareholder suits and derivative actions with regards to its disclosures. A putative securities class action was filed on May 28, 2021, in the Eastern District of New York captioned "Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc.," Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In September 2021, the court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class. Co-lead plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021, asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the company's common stock between July 10, 2019 and October 14, 2021. Additionally, the company disclosed multiple shareholder derivative actions arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action. On February 21, 2022, March 1, 2022, September 21, 2022, December 13, 2022 and July 11, 2024, five alleged shareholders filed separate derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of the company against certain of its current and former officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York captioned "Spiteri v. Branson et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-00933, "Grenier v. Branson et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-01100, "Laidlaw v. Branson et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-05634, "St. Jean v. Branson et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-7551 and "Gera v. Branson et al.," Case No. 1:24-cv-04795, respectively. On May 4, 2022, the Spiteri and Grenier Actions were consolidated and recaptioned "In re Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation," Case No. 1:22-cv-00933. On September 30, 2023, the Laidlaw action was consolidated into the Consolidated Derivative Action, and on September 12, 2024, the Gera action was consolidated into the Consolidated Derivative Action. Collectively, these complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934 and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment. Separately, on February 13, 2023, alleged shareholder Yousef Abughazaleh filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the company against certain of its current and former officers and directors in the District of Delaware captioned "Abughazaleh v. Branson et al.," Case No. 23-156-MN. It asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment. Additionally, on April 9, 2024, alleged shareholders Crystal Molnar and Cleveland Tubbs filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the company against certain of its current and former officers and directors in the Central District of California captioned "Molnar v. Branson et al.," Case No. 8:24-cv-775. It asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On September 3, 2024, alleged shareholder Kimberly Espinosa filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the company against certain of the company's current and former officers and directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned "Espinosa v. Branson et al.," Case No. 2024-0895-JTL. It asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is an aerospace and space travel company focused on developing and operating commercial spaceflight services for private individuals and researchers. The company is headquartered in Tustin, California, and is part of the Virgin Group of businesses founded by Richard Branson. W6LS INC: Parties in Oftedahl Suit Must Provide Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oftedahl v. W6LS Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-05112 (W.D. Wash., Filed Feb. 6, 2026), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M Cartwright entered an order directing the parties to provide further information on a proposed discovery and briefing schedule for class certification depending on its ruling on the pending motion to stay. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act W6LS operates an online lending website.[CC] WALT DISNEY: Duffield Sues Over Illegal Biometric Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMER CHRISTINE DUFFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY and DISNEY DTC LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04072-PKC (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026) contends that the Plaintiff has suffered the following from: (1) the interception of her private and valuable biometric data without adequate consent, (2) the disclosure of her private and valuable data for purposes not clearly defined by the Disney Privacy Policy, and (3) the loss of value of her personal information and biometric data from which Disney unlawfully profited. The suit seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profit into a constructive trust, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff and Class members are adults and minor children during the statutory period through the present day who visited one of Disney's theme parks and had their biometric information --in the form of facial recognition templates (the biometric information) -- in violation of privacy laws and without adequate consent. Specifically, the Plaintiff visited a Disney Theme Park on May 10, 2026 located in California and, without adequate consent, had her facial recognition template collected by Disney for use, processing, and retention. The Walt Disney Company is a premier global mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered in Burbank, California. Founded in 1923, the corporation spans three core segments: Disney Entertainment, ESPN, and Disney Experiences, operating major film studios, broadcast networks, streaming platforms, and international theme parks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC FOREST HILLS TOWER 118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 444 Forest Hills, New York 11375 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com WASHINGTON GROUP LLC: Quintanilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Washington Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alfredo Antonio Quintanilla, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. The Washington Group LLC d/b/a Scopa Italian Roots, Case No. 26STCV14578 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Washington Group -- https://www.thewashingtongroupllc.org/ -- specialize in providing expert political lobbying and public relations services to our client.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com WEAR FELICITY: Hussein Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wear Felicity Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05696 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://wearfelicity.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law WELLS FARGO: Palmer Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as BRAEDEN PALMER, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV10031, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04962 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts nine causes of action against the Defendant for: (1) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide required meal periods; (5) failure to provide required rest periods; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to reimburse required business expenses; (8) failure to provide wages when due upon termination of employment; and (9) failure to pay sick pay wages. Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial services company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ruth Zadikany, Esq. C. Mitchell Hendy, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: rzadikany@mayerbrown.com mhendy@mayerbrown.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Settlement in Abarca Suit Gets Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Werner Enterprises Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska entered preliminary approval of a settlement on February 5, 2026, and the settlement remains subject to final court approval. A liability balance of $17.7 million and $18.0 million for this agreement is included in other current liabilities on the consolidated condensed balance sheets as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. Werner reached an agreement in October 2025 with the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits entitled "Abarca et al. v. Werner," which are pending in said court, to settle these cases for a combined $18.0 million after more than a decade of litigation. The proceeding was instituted on June 4, 2014 in the Superior Court for Alameda County, California and was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on October 20, 2014. The cases, which were brought by a small group of drivers and later certified as a class action with tens of thousands of class members and covering the years from mid-2010 to late 2023, involved claims for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, alleged unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions, and other items. The meal and rest break claims were dismissed via summary judgment on June 1, 2021. Werner Enterprises Inc. is a transportation and logistics company providing truckload, logistics, and related services throughout the United States and internationally. The company operates a fleet of trucks and partners with third-party carriers to serve a wide range of retail, industrial, and consumer customers. WHALECO INC: Faces Chandi Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Chandi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whaleco, Inc. d/b/a Temu, U.S. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-at-02103 (E.D. Cal., May 12, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. WhaleCo is the US-based operating company and legal corporate entity behind the popular online discount marketplace Temu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Avenue No. 509 Miramar, FL 33027 WHEELER REAL ESTATE: Term Sheet Reached in Aquino Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2026, that it is settling a securities class action lawsuit over share price drop of Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. when it was acquired by Wheeler. A putative class action was brought by preferred stockholders of Cedar against its directors prior to its merger with Wheeler in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, captioned "Anthony Aquino, et al. v. Bruce Schanzer, et al.," Case No.: C-15-CV-25-000731. It alleges that the former Cedar directors breached their duties to its preferred stockholders through the merger, and the plaintiffs have alleged as damages the decline in value of Cedar preferred stock after the Cedar Acquisition was announced. The claims mirror the breach of duty claims that were a subject of another putative class action complaint entitled "Kim, et al. v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al.," which was dismissed with prejudice in 2023 by the District of Maryland. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2024. The Circuit Court in the Aquino action denied the Cedar directors' motion to dismiss. The company has a contractual obligation to indemnify said directors, including for reasonable costs and legal fees. On May 5, 2026, the parties to the Aquino action entered into a term sheet to resolve the litigation subject to approval by the Circuit Court and agreement by the Circuit Court to stay the current discovery schedule. At this juncture, the outcome of the matter cannot be predicted. Wheeler Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust focused primarily on owning and operating retail properties, including grocery-anchored shopping centers, in secondary and tertiary markets. The company acquires, manages, and leases income-producing real estate assets across its portfolio in the United States. WHITE KNIGHT: Macias Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Knight Pest Control, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Macias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. White Knight Pest Control, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01200 (W.D. Tex., May 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. White Knight Pest Control, Inc. -- https://www.whiteknightpest.com/ -- delivers residential and commercial pest control services to Texas, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com WHOLE FOODS: Class Cert Bid in Silberstein Extended to August 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silberstein v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04229 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order that the deadline to commence class certification motion practice is extended through Aug. 14, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Whole Foods is an American multinational supermarket chain.[CC] WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Court Tosses "Pavlov" EFTA Claim ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Elan Pavlov, Plaintiff, v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Dunbar LLC, and Dunbar Group LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-07362 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the sole federal claim and found subject matter jurisdiction appears lacking in this putative class action Memorandum Opinion filed May 15, 2026. Pavlov, a beneficiary of his grandmother's payable-on-death account with Wilmington Savings Fund Society (WSFS), alleged that WSFS routinely fails to grant beneficiaries access to accounts upon triggering events such as the death of the account holder, and that WSFS engages third-party vendors, including Dunbar LLC and Dunbar Group LLC (collectively, Dunbar), who attempt to extract money from beneficiaries in exchange for access to property that is lawfully theirs, without revealing where the accounts are located. Plaintiff asserted claims against WSFS including violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), negligence, violations of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Protection Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of confidence. Against Dunbar, he alleged aiding and abetting breach of confidence and violations of the same state statute. Both defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court found the EFTA claim must be dismissed. The EFTA requires periodic statements for each account of such consumer. Whether the account passed to Plaintiff upon his grandmother's death is a legal conclusion, not a fact, and Plaintiff cited no viable authority for his contention. He therefore forfeited the argument. With the EFTA claim dismissed, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 was no longer proper. As to CAFA jurisdiction, Plaintiff provided no factual detail to support the allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Plaintiff therefore appears not to have met his burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 15, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zKYqCK from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Dunbar LLC and Dunbar Group LLC are represented by: Robert James Cosgrove, Esq. WADE CLARK MULCAHY Email: rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com Defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB is represented by: Walter Weir, Jr., Esq. WEIR LLP Email: wweir@weirlawllp.com Susan M. Verbonitz, Esq. WEIR LLP Email: sverbonitz@wgpllp.com Jeffrey S. Cianciulli, Esq. WEIR LLP Email: jcianciulli@weirlawllp.com Plaintiff Elan Pavlov is represented by: Constantine P. Economides, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP Email: ceconomides@dynamisllp.com Michael B. Homer, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP Email: mhomer@dynamisllp.com Lance Aduba, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP Email: laduba@dynamisllp.com Tyler Finn, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP Email: tfinn@dynamisllp.com Lynn Fouad, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP Email: lfouad@dynamisllp.com Kevin Trainer, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER P.C. Email: ktrainer@langergrogan.com WISCONSIN RIVER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Corbett Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wisconsin River Brands, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00459 (W.D. Wis., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://nolaninterior.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cazares and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website, the suit contends. Ms. Cazares browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a Corbett browsed and intended to make an online purchase of meat sticks on the Website. Despite her efforts, however, Corbett was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website’s lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its Website, Corbett and Class Members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on the Website. Corbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Wisconsin River Brands, Inc. owns the website, a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view specialty meat products, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law WOLVERINE WORLD: Faces Various Suits over Contamination Issues -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolverine World Wide Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2026, that disclosing that beginning in late 2017, individual lawsuits and three putative class action lawsuits, later consolidated into one, were filed against the company that raise a variety of claims, including claims related to property, remediation, and human health effects. In September 2022, the parties to the putative class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement seeking to resolve the putative class action plaintiffs' claims. On March 29, 2023, the court presiding over the putative class action granted final approval of the proposed settlement and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. Wolverine World Wide Inc. is a Michigan-based designer, manufacturer and marketer of footwear, apparel and accessories, best known for brands such as Merrell, Saucony and Wolverine. The Company distributes its products globally through wholesale, retail and e-commerce channels. WSFS FINANCIAL: Hidalgo Sues Over "Open Concept" Business Layout ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINAFLOR HIDALGO and ROMEO HIDALGO v. WSFS FINANCIAL CORPORATION WSFS BANK, and ZYKEEM FIELDS, Case No. N26C-05-156 FWW (Del. Super., May 18, 2026) is a class action suit on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated arising on an incident that took place on September 28, 2022, in which Plaintiff Hidalgo, was catastrophically injured when she was the victim of an assault and battery resulting from the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, while a business invitee of Defendants, was caused to be attacked after leaving the Premises by the Defendant, Zykeem Fields, who entered and remained on the Premises for a significant period of time during which time he saw the amount of money which Plaintiff withdrew due to the carelessness and negligence of the Defendants, causing Mrs. Hidalgo to suffer those serious and permanent injuries. The WSFS Bank had an "open concept" layout which permitted individuals who entered the bank to clearly observe other individuals' banking transactions including, but not limited to, the large cash withdrawal machine, the computer screens of the bank tellers, the type of transaction being conducted, and cash withdrawals provided to the customers at the bank tellers' desks. The "open concept" setup of the subject WSFS Bank allowed for other individuals, such as Zykeem Fields, to clearly observe the large amount of money which Plaintiff was withdrawing in cash, the suit alleges. The Defendants owned, controlled, operated, managed, maintained, inspected, and/or oversaw the WSFS Bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather A. Long, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HEATHER A. LONG, LLC 501 Main Street No. 638 Odessa, DE, 19730 Telephone (302) 466-5664 WYNDHAM HOTELS: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02574 (D. Minn., May 11, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.wyndhamhotels.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant offers hotel booking services for sale including, but not limited to, hotel stays, travel bundle packages, cruise packages, flights, car rentals, tours, meeting and event spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com YOUNG LIVING: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02588 (D. Minn., May 12, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.youngliving.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website’s development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ********* 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 ***