260526.mbx

260526.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 26, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 104 Headlines A. SAMBADO & SON: Sepulveda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ADOBE SYSTEMS: Adair Bid to Subpoena Adobe Systems Underway ADVANCEDHEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach AEO MANAGEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hall Suit Claims AMAZON.COM INC: Illegally Collects TV Viewing Data, Suit Says AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 16 AMERICAN DIRECT: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California AMERICAN SPRING HEATING: Veliz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. APPFOLIO INC: Comfort Suit Removed to N.D. California APPFOLIO INC: Comfort Suit Removed to N.D. California APPLE INC: Stanfield Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ASPEN CONTRACTING: Court Amends Scheduling Order AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Pumps BAILLIE LUMBER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Walters Due August 28 BALAJI HOTELS INC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BAROSA INC: Moncayo Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA, NYLL BAYER CORP: Chen Sues Over Mislabeled Men's Multivitamins BBBB BONDING: Benton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses BEACON MUTUAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach BITCOIN DEPOT: Faces Lacey Suit Over Systemic Cryptocurrency Scams BPD ENTERPRISES: Hempstead Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CAL-MAINE: DMSD Restaurants Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CARNIVAL CORP: Mertz Sues Over Fragranced Consumer Products CARTER SERVICES: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Hauser Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania CENTERLINE DRIVERS: Cortez Suit Removed to C.D. California CHAMPIONX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach CLEAN HARBORS: Bell Suit Removed to E.D. California CLEARY BUILDING: Winkler Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Violations CLUTCH INC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Cesario Class Suit COASTAL DEVELOPMENT: Vegtel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Imbert Suit Over Stock Price Drop COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: McCullar Balks at Untimely Gas Proceed Payments CONSOLIDATED WELLSITE: Hubbard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 26 CURRENEX INC: Allowed to Seal Certain Exhibit in EFC Suit DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Colon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DEVON ENERGY: Kunneman Sues Over Non-Payment of Gas Royalties DOXIMITY INC: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for July 25 EADEM INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELARA CARING: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Kirby Says ESSENTIAL HOSPITALITY: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Wages ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA: Smith Files Suit in E.D. New York EUREKA RESTAURANT: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EVERGY INC: Class Settlement in Doll Suit Gets Initial Nod EXPEDITED TRAVEL: Alfonzetti Case Referred to Magistrate Judge EXPEDITED TRAVEL: Shipp Files Suit in S.D. Florida FCA US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Equal Employment Suit FJ MANAGEMENT INC: Wolfe Suit Transferred to D. Utah FREEMAN MARTIN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Suit FRITO-LAY INC: Sklyar Sues Over Misleading Product Claims FUNKO LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Dirksen Alleges GEN DIGITAL: Garcia Sues Over Spamming and Invasion of Privacy GLENDORA SURGERY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach GLOBAL THREAT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages GOFUNDME INC: Watson Suit Removed to N.D. California GOLF & TENNIS: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GOODWIN UNIVERSITY: Hamlin Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Info GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement in Curley Suit Gets Final Nod GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Thurber Sues Over Exchange Act Violation GRINNELL COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Collection HEAVEN HILL: Dubreu Sues Over Falsely Labeled Product HILTON WORLDWIDE: Employs Fragrance in Facilities, Mayer Says HISENSE USA: Severino et al. Sue Over Consumers' Privacy Invasion HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Honda Odyssey's Airbag Defects HV GLOBAL: Ramsey Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: Jenks Sues Over Private Data Breach INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Ivey Files Suit Over Data Breach INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Islas Suit Alleges INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Brown Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clarkson Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Sensitive Private Info, Suit Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Hall Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Schneider Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ISLAND BAGEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amaya Suit Alleges J-M MANUFACTURING: Faces Leafdale Suit Over Toxic Asbestos Fibers JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class, Derivative Actions JUICE PRESS: Uses Illegal Tracking Tools, Loshkareva Alleges KENDO HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Claims KKR & CO: Hinds Sues Over Data Security Failures KRISTI NOEM: Class Certification Bid Held in Abeyance LA FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $725,000 LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California LEGAL AID: Kubicki Sues Over Disability Accommodation Practices LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Harhay Suit Removed to E.D. California LUFAX HOLDING: Faces Mau Class Suit Over Market Value Drop MARYLAND: Bangura Wins Class Certification Bid MONSANTO COMPANY: Tomion Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOSAIC COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over NPK Fertilizers Monopoly NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 24 NESTLE HEALTH: Faces Pitre Class Suit Over Biotin Supplements NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK, NY: MB Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification NEWREZ LLC: Ward-Lucas Sues Over Insurance Payment Failure NEXTERA ENERGY: M&A Investigates Merger with Dominion Energy NSC ABATEMENT: Burbano Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed OCTONUTS LLC: Crumwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind OLIVE & JUNE: Meade Suit Removed to C.D. California PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Users' Data Tracking PARK DENTAL: Faces Consolidated Data Breach Suit in Minnesota Court PARKER-HANNIFIN: Schumaker Suit Removed to S.D. California PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM PETROLEX II: Parties Seek Extension of Pre-Trial Deadlines PHONAK LLC: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Frost Says PHREESIA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set July 13 PHREESIA INC: Faces Shareholders Class Suit Over Securities Fraud PHREESIA INC: Theodoulou Alleges Federal Securities Law Violations PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Phaneuf Suit Over Unscented Antiperspirant ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Website Conceals Tracking Tools, Dunn Says SCHELL & KAMPETER: Faces Class Suit Over Dog Foods' Deceptive Ads SCHULER SHOES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges SHEIN US: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Advertising of Fictitious Prices SHOPKICK INC: Strickler Sues Over WARN Act Violations SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Tariff-Related Price Hikes STADIUM CASINO: Leeb Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania SYNGENTA CROP: Hunter Sues Over Hazardous Paraquat Products TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Higher Insurance Premiums TRIANGLE FAMILY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach UDR INC: Removes Cupit Class Action Suit to C.D. Calif. UNITED PARCEL: Families of Crash Victims Attend NTSB Hearing in DC UNITED STATES: Gribbon et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Cars Have Defective Water Pumps, Larr Suit Says WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Use of Facial Recognition at Parks WEDRIVEU INC: Fails to Provide Advance Layoff Notice, Lamont Says WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Shaul-Bolek Sues Over Data Security Failures YOKOHAMA TIRE: Stevens and Murphy Allege LRMA and ERISA Breaches ZURI FURNITURE: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* A. SAMBADO & SON: Sepulveda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A. Sambado & Son, Inc. The case is styled as Mario Sepulveda, individually, an on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A. Sambado & Son, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003387 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is not stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." A. Sambado & Son, Inc. operates retail nurseries and garden stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com ADOBE SYSTEMS: Adair Bid to Subpoena Adobe Systems Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- JERRY M. ADAIR; CARLA DANIELSON; KATHERINE J. EMRICK; PRESTON PHAM; and EVA D. RECCHIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Movants v. ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., Respondent, Case No. 5:26-mc-80144-VKD (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2026) seek an order t to compel Adobe Systems, Inc. to comply with Movants' Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action, dated December 22, 2025. The Movants request that these proceedings be transferred to the district adjudicating the underlying action, Adair et al. v. Cigna Corporate Services, LLC, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02384-WB (E.D. Pa.). Adobe Systems, Inc. is in the business of wholesale distribution of computers, computer peripheral equipment, and computer software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1200 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com ADVANCEDHEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of reports of an AdvancedHEALTH data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who may be impacted, including current and former AdvancedHEALTH patients and employees. Possible AdvancedHEALTH Security Incident: What Happened? Emerging reports indicate that AdvancedHEALTH, a prominent multi-specialty healthcare group in Tennessee, may have experienced a cyberattack. A May 16, 2026 post on cybersecurity website DeXpose reveals that threat actor DragonForce alleges that it exfiltrated 2,300,000 lines of patient and corporate information in a possible AdvancedHEALTH data breach. DeXpose’s summary of the incident indicates that DragonForce provided screenshots as evidence to support its claims. AdvancedHEALTH, which operates a network of over 550 healthcare providers, has not confirmed a data breach. What You Can Do After the Reported AdvancedHEALTH Cyberattack If you believe your information was exposed in the potential AdvancedHEALTH data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force AdvancedHEALTH to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] AEO MANAGEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hall Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ SARAH HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEO MANAGEMENT CO DBA AERIE, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02823-AJB-BJW (S.D. Cal., May 4, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Aeo Management Co dba Aerie retails men's and women's casual apparel, footwear, outerwear, and accessories. The Company provides products include jeans, khakis, t-shirts, and other similar apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Illegally Collects TV Viewing Data, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers are suing Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Digital Services LLC and Amazon Technologies Inc. Why: The plaintiffs allege Amazon secretly collects and sells Amazon Fire TV viewing data in violation of consumer privacy laws. Where: The Amazon Fire TV class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court. Amazon is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging it violated consumer privacy laws by secretly collecting and selling data about what consumers watch on Amazon TVs. Plaintiffs Nancy Manypenny and Kenneth Enser filed the class action complaint against Amazon on May 6 in Washington federal court. The class action lawsuit claims that Amazon installs software on its Fire TV-branded televisions and third-party Fire TVs, which records and analyzes every image, frame and sound played on the screen. This data is then sold to advertisers without the knowledge or consent of consumers, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon's practices violate the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which was enacted in 1988 to protect consumers' privacy. The VPPA prohibits the disclosure of personally identifiable information about a consumer's video viewing history without their consent. Class action claims Amazon uses data to sell targeted ads According to the class action lawsuit, Amazon's software tracks not only what apps consumers use and for how long, but also every video they watch, which parts they pause or rewind and every word they hear. This includes content from external devices connected to the TV, such as game systems, DVD players or streaming devices. Amazon allegedly uses this information to sell highly targeted advertisements to its corporate clients, generating billions of dollars in revenue from its advertising business. The plaintiffs argue that Amazon never obtained informed consent from them or other consumers to collect and share their data. They also claim that Amazon's tracking practices constitute an invasion of privacy and breach of implied contract. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who have owned or used an Amazon Fire TV or a third-party Fire TV and whose data was collected without their consent. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief to prevent Amazon from continuing its alleged unlawful practices. In another Amazon privacy lawsuit, a Washington federal judge has recently narrowed a class action complaint accusing Amazon of secretly recording Alexa users' private conversations. The plaintiffs are represented by Roger M. Townsend of Townsend Legal and Nick Suciu III and Trenton R. Kashima of Bryson Harris Suciu & Demay PLLC. The Amazon class action lawsuit is Manypenny, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01534, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 16 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA TERRELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL, INC., NASHVILLE WIRE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC & MID-SOUTH WIRE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00653 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Evans entered an amended case management order as follows: -- The parties must file a second joint case resolution status report, confirming their second substantive attempt at case resolution, within 14 days after the close of fact discovery. -- All remaining class discovery, including depositions and supplemental expert discovery, shall be completed on or before Sept. 30, 2026. -- All motions related to class discovery shall be filed by no later than Oct. 16, 2026 -- All expert witness depositions related to class certification shall be completed on or before Sept. 30, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file any renewed motion for class certification on or before Oct. 16, 2026. Ambassador is a staffing agency that specializes in providing customized HR solutions and recruitment services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dVbVmt at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN DIRECT: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Direct Funding LLC. The case is styled as William Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Direct Funding LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03563-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal., May 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Direct Funding -- https://americandirectfunding.com/ -- specializes in providing quick and flexible financing solutions for small businesses, including small business loans, lines of credit, equipment financing, and SBA loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com AMERICAN SPRING HEATING: Veliz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Spring Heating & Cooling, Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Veliz, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Spring Heating & Cooling, Inc., Case No. 26STCV14856 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." American Spring Heating & Cooling, Inc. -- https://www.americanspringhvac.com/ -- specialize in HVAC System Analysis and Design, Installation Engineering, Maintenance, and Service & Repair of Commercial Systems..[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 APPFOLIO INC: Comfort Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ian Comfort, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AppFolio, Inc., Case No. CGC-26-634729 was removed from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04277-TSH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. AppFolio, Inc. -- https://www.appfolio.com/ -- is an American company founded in 2006 that offers software-as-a-service applications and services to the real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Amanda Jasmine Rosenberg KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Navid Cyrus Bayar, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 525 Market Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2708 Phone: (415) 293-4812 Email: NBayar@jenner.com - and - Elizabeth L. Henthorne, Esq. Lindsay C. Harrison, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 637-6367 Fax: (202) 847-4005 Email: bhenthorne@jenner.com LHarrison@jenner.com APPFOLIO INC: Comfort Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ian Comfort, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APPFOLIO, INC., Case No. CGC-26-634729 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04277. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against AppFolio for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Navid C. Bayar, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 525 Market Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2708 Phone: (415) 293-4812 Email: nbayar@jenner.com - and - Lindsay C. Harrison, Esq. Elizabeth Henthorne, Esq. 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001-4412 Phone: (202) 639-6000 Email: lharrison@jenner.com bhenthorne@jenner.com APPLE INC: Stanfield Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- TRISHA STANFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-04392 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2026) seeks 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, and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. To provide its services, Apple employed (and continues to employ) numerous hourly, non-exempt call-center employees--including Plaintiff and the individuals that make up the putative collective and class. Allegedly, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek but were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. The company also operates retail stores, online stores, and provides technical support services to its customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-922 Facsimile: (310) 654-4093 E-mail: william@laurelemploymentlaw.com - and - Austin W. Anderson, Esq. William C. ("Clif") Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com ASPEN CONTRACTING: Court Amends Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA RAGSDALE, v. ASPEN CONTRACTING, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00730-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian Wimes entered an order granting the parties' motion to amend scheduling order. The deadlines set forth in the Class Action Scheduling Order – First Phase are amended as follows: 1. This matter is set for a telephone conference on Jan. 19, 2027, at 2:30 p.m., to schedule a trial date and related deadlines; 2. The parties shall submit a joint proposed second phase scheduling order on or before Jan. 7, 2027; 3. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification on or before Sept. 17, 2026; 4. The Plaintiff shall designate any class certification-related expert witness on or before July 20, 2026. The Defendant shall designate any certification-related expert witness on or before Aug. 17, 2026. Rebuttal expert witnesses, if any, shall be designated on or before Sept. 1, 2026; 5. All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and related to Class Discovery shall be completed on or before Oct. 26, 2026; and 6. All other deadlines and requirements previously set forth in the original Class Action Scheduling Order – First Phase remain in effect and unaltered. The Court finds that the technical issues described by the parties constitute good cause to modify the scheduling order and grants the motion. The Defendant is a roofing, siding and gutter contractor. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5RjAKw at no extra charge.[CC] AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Water Pumps -------------------------------------------------------------- Karl Furlong, writing for Autoblog, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Audi for defective water pumps in a range of Audi models. All implicated Audi models make use of a V6 from the EA839 engine family, including both 2.9-liter and 3.0-liter units. The Plaintiffs claim they've been hit with exorbitant repair bills for failing water pumps and related components when the cars were out of warranty, even though Audi allegedly knew about the defect since November 2018. Many problems related to cooling systems can incur high repair costs and/or extensive engine damage, so let's take a closer look at this lawsuit. Audi Water Pump Lawsuit The Plaintiffs in this case are Doug Larr from California and Kaelin Crawford from New Jersey. They've named the following Audi models in the lawsuit: -- 2018-2024 Audi A4 -- 2018-2024 Audi A5 -- 2018-2024 Audi S5 Cabriolet -- 2018-2024 Audi S5 Sportback -- 2018-2024 Audi RS 5 -- 2018-2024 Audi SQ5 -- 2019-2024 Audi A6 -- 2019-2024 Audi A7 -- 2019-2024 Audi A8 -- 2019-2024 Audi Q8 -- 2019 and 2021-2024 Audi RS 5 Sportback -- 2020-2024 Audi A6 Allroad -- 2020-2024 Audi S6 -- 2020-2024 Audi S7 -- 2020-2024 Audi Q7 -- 2020-2021 Audi A8 e quattro -- 2021-2024 Audi SQ5 Sportback The lawsuit, shared by Car Complaints, states that the coolant module in these models is defective due to seals, housing, and internal components that wear out prematurely. This happens when the engine is operating at normal temperatures. Ultimately, coolant leaks into the vacuum system, contaminating it, and can lead to overheating and even turbocharger problems. Larr owns a 2019 Audi A6 and Crawford has a 2021 Audi SQ5. Both ran into these issues and needed to fork out $6,000 and $1,460, respectively. In Larr's case, the water pump, PCV valve, and vacuum hose system had to be replaced. Crawford was initially quoted $2,800 for a fix from Audi, but managed to get the job done independently for around half that price. While both plaintiffs' cars were out of warranty, the lawsuit claims that Audi dealers are pushing water pump replacement costs onto customers even if their warranties remain valid. Complaints Pile Up For EA839 Engines We visited the NHTSA's website and quickly found other complaints from Audi owners relating to failed water pumps. One Texas customer said their 2019 Audi A6's water pump failed at just 49,000 miles, and Audi said it's not covered by the extended warranty. Another owner of a 2019 Q8 was quoted $5,519 for a pump and coolant system repair, with that model on only 41,831 miles. Many complaints listed show failures occurring at under 50,000 miles. Interestingly, the EA839 engine is also found in numerous Porsche models, but none of them were mentioned in this lawsuit. [GN] BAILLIE LUMBER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Walters Due August 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT WALTERS, SCOTT LOSEE, TAHJ ROBERTS, and BRAXTON CLEMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAILLIE LUMBER CO., L.P., Case No. 1:25-cv-00728-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Roemer entered a case management order as follows: 1. Compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements found in Rule 26(a)(1) will be accomplished no later than May 22, 2026. 2. All motions to join other parties and to amend the pleadings shall be filed no later than Aug. 28, 2026. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Aug. 28, 2026. The Defendant's response to the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 2, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed on or before Nov. 6, 2026. The class certification motion shall be made returnable before the Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. 4. All remaining discovery deadlines will be held in abeyance pending the Court's order on class certification. The Defendant distributes lumber, plywood, and millwork. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oFVirD at no extra charge.[CC] BALAJI HOTELS INC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balaji Hotels, Inc. The case is styled as Andres Maldonado, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Balaji Hotels, Inc., Case No. MCV098945 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Balaji Hotels and Enterprises Limited provides financial services.[BN] BAROSA INC: Moncayo Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER ANGUISACA MONCAYO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BAROSA, INC. (D/B/A BAROSA), JOSEPH LAROSA (AKA JOE LAROSA), AND FRANK BARBONE, Case No. 1:26-cv-02950 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Moncayo worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Moncayo appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The suit seeks liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was a former employee of Defendants. Mr. Moncayo was employed as a pizza preparer at the Italian restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located at 62-29 Woodhaven Blvd., Rego Park, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BAYER CORP: Chen Sues Over Mislabeled Men's Multivitamins --------------------------------------------------------- JIE CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CORPORATION; and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02704-BMC (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a consumer protection class action arising out of Defendants' false advertising of their One A Day Men's Pre-Conception Health Multivitamin (the "OAD Product"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the misleading messages conveyed by their marketing, the Defendants have caused the Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase a product that does not perform as represented. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers have been harmed in the amount of the price premium they paid as a result of Defendants' false and misleading representations. Bayer Corporation operates as a pharmaceutical and life science company. The Company researches, develops, manufactures, and markets products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com BBBB BONDING: Benton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BENTON, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, v. BBBB BONDING CORPORATION, CLIFFORD JEFFREY STANLEY, ROBERT HILL-VENN, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01294-DC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 7, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move the court as follows: 1. Certifying Class and Subclasses Class: "All current and former bail agents employed by the Defendant in California during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order granting class certification" Labor Code Overtime Sub-Class: "All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California who had a salary or salary plus commission compensation plan during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order granting class certification" Labor Code Minimum Wage Sub-Class: "All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California who had a salary or salary plus commission compensation plan during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order granting class certification" Meal Period Sub-Class: "All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order granting class certification" Rest Period Sub-Class: "All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order granting class certification" Derivative Claim Sub-Class: "All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order granting class certification" 2. Conditionally certifying a FLSA Overtime Class Defined: "All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California who had a salary or salary plus commission compensation plan during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order granting class certification" BBBB specializes in providing a range of bonding services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QZoDvR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Corren, Esq. Spencer D. Sinclair, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CORREN % CORREN 3425 Brookside Road, Suite B Stockton, CA 95219 Telephone: (209) 478-2621 Facsimile: (209) 478-3038 E-mail: acorren@correnlaw.com ssinclair@correnlaw.com BEACON MUTUAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Beacon Mutual data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Beacon Mutual data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Beacon Mutual Security Incident: What Happened? The Beacon Mutual Insurance Company has reported a data breach involving unauthorized access to its network. Beacon Mutual provides workers' compensation services to companies based in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, where 11,890 state residents were impacted by the incident. A letter sent to the Maine Attorney General's Office states that from January 7 to January 14, 2026, an unauthorized individual accessed Beacon Mutual's systems and acquired copies of files, one or more of which contained names and Social Security numbers. The report submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation indicates that the Beacon Mutual data breach also compromised financial account information and driver's licenses. As reported by the Rhode Island Current, Beacon Mutual first confirmed that it was a victim of a ransomware attack on January 14, with threat actor INC Ransom taking credit for the cyberattack. Beacon Mutual began mailing notification letters to affected individuals on May 18, 2026. What You Can Do After the Beacon Mutual Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Beacon Mutual data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Beacon Mutual to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] BITCOIN DEPOT: Faces Lacey Suit Over Systemic Cryptocurrency Scams ------------------------------------------------------------------ KAREN LACEY and ROBERT LACEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BITCOIN DEPOT, INC. and BITCOIN DEPOT OPERATING, LLC (D/B/A BITCOIN DEPOT), Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00288-DKG (D. Idaho, May 11, 2026) is an action seeking to hold Bitcoin Depot accountable for systematically facilitating cryptocurrency scams through its Bitcoin ATM network, particularly targeting vulnerable consumers who, when manipulated into states of panic and urgency by fraudsters claiming identity theft or other emergencies, lose thousands of dollars through Bitcoin Depot's machines. Plaintiffs Karen and Robert Lacey were targeted by a sophisticated impersonation scam in which fraudsters, posing as Norton customer service representatives and FBI agents, convinced them that their identities had been used in connection with serious criminal activity, including child pornography and illegal gambling, and that all of their financial accounts were in immediate danger of being compromised. Under this fabricated crisis, the Plaintiffs were coerced into withdrawing funds from their accounts and depositing cash at a Bitcoin Depot ATM, with the scammers maintaining constant surveillance and psychological control to prevent Plaintiffs from seeking outside help, says the suit. As one of the largest Bitcoin ATM operators in North America, Bitcoin Depot has actual knowledge that its ATMs are routinely used for these impersonation scams. Despite this knowledge -- and despite publicly claiming to provide "safe and secure" Bitcoin ATM services -- Bitcoin Depot prioritizes profits over protection, the suit alleges. This lawsuit alleges Bitcoin Depot's conduct violates the Idaho Consumer Protection Act through misrepresenting the security of its services and failing to implement adequate safeguards. The complaint also brings claims for negligence, voluntary assumption of duty for Bitcoin Depot's breach of its self-proclaimed commitment to customer protection, and unjust enrichment. Bitcoin Depot, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia that operates the largest cryptocurrency kiosk network in North America, claiming to operate more than 8,400 Bitcoin ATMs across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barkley B. Smith, Esq. BARKLEY SMITH LAW, PLLC 999 W Main St., Ste 100 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 481-4812 E-mail: barkley@barkleysmithlaw.com - and - Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 BPD ENTERPRISES: Hempstead Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Hempstead, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BPD ENTERPRISES, INC. TEN D ENTERPRISES, INC.; and BIG D ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00144-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., May 8, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Despite this requirement, Defendants calculate overtime at a flat rate of one and one-half times the employee's base hourly rate, excluding all bonus compensation from the regular rate calculation. This practice results in systematic underpayment of overtime wages to every hourly employee who receives bonus compensation in any workweek in which that employee works more than 40 hours. Plaintiff has been paid on an hourly basis at a rate of $13.30 per hour. Plaintiff has not been compensated on a salary basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed as a manager at a McDonald's restaurant owned by BPD Enterprises, Inc. in Lucedale, Mississippi since approximately February 2025. The Defendants own and operate a network of twenty McDonald's franchise restaurants spanning the Mississippi Gulf Coast and neighboring parts of south Mississippi and South Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 Parkgate Dr., Ext., Ste. 205 Tupelo, MS 38801 Phone: (662) 913-7811 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com CAL-MAINE: DMSD Restaurants Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as DMSD Restaurants, Inc., Feast American Diners, LLC, Feast Restaurants, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other 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. 2:26-cv-04204 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 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00431-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: Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3080 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: mdellangelo@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 CARNIVAL CORP: Mertz Sues Over Fragranced Consumer Products ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY MERTZ, MARJORIE KASE, and ELLIOTT MAYER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION LTD. and PRINCESS CRUISES, Case No. 2:26-cv-05333 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) seeks remedies for the Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities. The Defendant claims to offer lodging, restaurant and bar service, pool and exercise facilities to the general public, including Representative Plaintiff, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, 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, Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said 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. "Synthetic fragranced consumer product" is a base product to which synthetic fragrance compounds are then added and/or is a product that is largely comprised of fragrance. Synthetic fragranced consumer products are used regularly by hotels, banks, restaurants, wineries, medical and dental facilities, brick and mortal retail stores and a multitude of other businesses across a host of industries to impart what they purport to be a pleasant, or at least unique, aroma and/or to mask unpleasant odors, mold, etc. Among other insidious realities, by use of these fragranced compounds, visitors are left unaware of other dangerous conditions (e.g., deadly mold), says the suit. CARNIVAL CORPORATION LTD is a leisure travel company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 CARTER SERVICES: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carter Services Holdings Inc. The case is styled as Santiago Escobar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Carter Services Holdings Inc., Case No. 26STCV14885 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Carter Services -- https://www.carterservices.com/ -- specializes in providing high-quality plumbing, heating, air conditioning, electrical, and appliance repair services for both residential and commercial clients in Torrance, California, and the South Bay area.[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 CELESTIAL SEASONINGS: Hauser Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Hauser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CELESTIAL SEASONINGS, INC., Case No. 260400805 was removed from the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, to the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00116. The Plaintiff alleges that Celestial Seasonings mislabels its Fruit Tea Sampler Herbal Tea as "solely flavored by natural ingredients" and as "NATURALLY FLAVORED WITH OTHER NATURAL FLAVORS." The Plaintiff alleges that this statement is false because "the Product is not solely flavored by natural ingredients because the peach and blackberry flavored teas are flavored in part by the synthetic flavoring ingredient Citric Acid." Based on this theory of mislabeling, Plaintiff asserts two claims against Celestial Seasonings: a claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (the "UTPCPL"); and a claim for unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David A. Strassburger, Esq. STRASSBURGER McKENNA GUTNICK & GEFSKY Four Gateway Center, Suite 2200 444 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 281-5423 Fax: (412) 281-8264 Email: dstrassburger@smgglaw.com - and - Alexander M. Smith, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2901 Email: asmith@jenner.com - and - Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Email: dpanos@jenner.com CENTERLINE DRIVERS: Cortez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Vincent Cortez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. CENTERLINE DRIVERS LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; TA DEDICATED, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; TFI INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California limited liability company; TA DEDICATED KAISER MIRA LOMA DMS, a business entity of unknown form; TA DEDICATED, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2601846 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02466. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following claims for relief against the Defendants: Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime, Failure to Comply with Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements, Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages, Failure to Indemnify, Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Ongaro, Esq. Cara R. Sherman, Esq. ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 433-3900 Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com csherman@ongaropc.com CHAMPIONX CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a class action was filed on behalf of all sellers of ChampionX Corporation (NASDAQ: CHX) common stock between February 29, 2024 and April 1, 2024. 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. The allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that ChampionX Corporation (CHX) Repurchased Shares of its Stock in Violation of Securities Laws According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants repurchased 216,000 shares of ChampionX stock -- worth millions of dollars -- from unsuspecting investors without disclosing material nonpublic information about SLB’s offers to purchase ChampionX at a premium to then-current prices. If this information had been disclosed as required it would have indicated to investors that ChampionX’s stock was worth significantly more. Plaintiff alleges that 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, harming investors who sold during the class period. What now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against ChampionX Corporation. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/championx-corporation/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against ChampionX Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260518444191/en/ CONTACT: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a plaintiff has filed a class action lawsuit against Citizens Financial Group Inc. and Citizens Bank N.A. Why: The plaintiff alleges Citizens Bank failed to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information of its customers. Where: The Citizens Bank lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island federal court. Citizens Bank failed to protect its customers' highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII), a recent Citizens Bank lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Jillian Russell Hauser filed the complaint against Citizens Financial Group Inc. and Citizens Bank N.A. on April 22 in Rhode Island federal court, alleging violations of state and federal laws. The lawsuit alleges Citizens Bank, one of the oldest and largest financial institutions in the nation, failed to protect the PII of its current and former customers when cybercriminals infiltrated its computer systems in a data breach that happened before April 20. "Before April 20, 2026, Defendants were hacked by the Russian cybercriminal syndicate Everest," the class action lawsuit says. According to the lawsuit, the breach was perpetrated by the Russian cybercriminal syndicate Everest, which acquired 3.4 million records from Citizens Bank and posted them on the dark web. Hauser, who is a victim of the breach, says the compromised data includes Social Security numbers and financial account information. She argues Citizens Bank failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and maintain reasonable security safeguards to protect the PII of its customers. Customers did not receive timely notification of Citizens Bank data breach, class action claims Hauser claims Citizens Bank failed to notify its customers of the Citizens Bank data breach in a timely manner, depriving them of the ability to take appropriate measures to protect their PII and mitigate the harm caused by the breach. She also argues Citizens Bank violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires financial institutions to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of consumer information. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals residing in the United States whose PII was compromised in the Citizens Bank data breach reported by Citizens Bank in April 2026. Hauser seeks damages, including compensatory, exemplary, punitive and statutory damages, as well as restitution and attorneys' fees. She also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to protect the interests of the class members and prevent future breaches. In related news, customers are suing Marquis Software Solutions and Norway Savings Bank for failing to safeguard sensitive information and waiting months before informing customers of a data breach. [GN] CLEAN HARBORS: Bell Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Bell, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; CLEAN HARBORS, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,, Case No. CU26-01797 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00779. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges two causes of action for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act for Unpaid Overtime and Unpaid Minimum Wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Austin J. Freeman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com austin.freeman@ogletree.com CLEARY BUILDING: Winkler Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY WINKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARY BUILDING CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00451 (W.D. Wis., May 13, 2026) asserts claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff maintains that his outbound and return travel fell within his workday and constituted hours worked under federal law and Illinois law. The Defendant, however, subjected Plaintiff and other non-exempt field employees under the common timekeeping and payroll practices that included separate compensation codes for "Drive Time" and "Drive Time Overtime." As a result, the Defendant was able to reduce the wages owed, the regular rate of pay, and overtime compensation, says the suit. Headquartered in Madison, WI, Cleary Building Corp. designs, engineers, manufactures, delivers, and constructs customized pre-engineered buildings and related structures. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Cody Reinberg, Esq. Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY LLP 7382 Pershing Ave., 1W St. Louis, MO 63130 Telephone/Facsmile: (314) 391-9557 E-mail: creinberg@hkm.com kdolley@hkm.com CLUTCH INC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Cesario Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN CESARIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CLUTCH, INC., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03769-DEH-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. Clutch, Inc. provides information technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e6CY9C at no extra charge.[CC] COASTAL DEVELOPMENT: Vegtel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coastal Development Services Foundation. The case is styled as April D. Vegtel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Coastal Development Services Foundation, Case No. 26STCV14977 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Coastal Development Services Foundation provides individual and family social, counseling, welfare, referral services, including refugee, disaster, and temporary relief services.[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 COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Imbert Suit Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE IMBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., SANJAY MIRCHANDANI, and JENNIFER DIRICO, Case No. 3:26-cv-05654 (D.N.J., May 18, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Commvault securities between April 29, 2025 to January 26, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities. Accordingly, the Defendants provided investors with material information pertaining to Commvault's projected ARR growth for fiscal year 2026. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, misleading guidance and projections related to the Company's new net ARR growth. 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 Commvault's ARR growth environment. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Commvault's securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. The truth emerged on January 27, 2026, when Commvault published third quarter 2026 fiscal results, which included ARR growth below the guidance provided by the Company. In particular, ARR growth for the third quarter 2026 was $39 million, which fell short of the $45 million projection provided. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Commvault's revelation. The price of Commvault's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $129.36 per share on January 26, 2026, Commvault's stock price fell to $89.13 per share on January 27, 2026, a decline of over 31% in a single day, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Commvault common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Commvault is a data protection company. The firm provides data protection, cyber resilience solutions, and management software, specializing in hybrid and multi-cloud environments. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[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 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Commvault class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Commvault Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVLT) securities between April 29, 2025 and January 26, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned Imbert v. Commvault Systems, Inc., No. 26-cv-05654 (D.N.J.), the Commvault class action lawsuit charges Commvault and certain of Commvault's top current and former executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Commvault class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-commvault-systems-inc-class-action-lawsuit-cvlt.html CASE ALLEGATIONS: Commvault provides cyber resiliency solutions for enterprises to protect, secure, and recover data, applications, and identity systems. The Commvault class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that Commvault's annualized recurring revenue ("ARR") growth would remain steady throughout fiscal year 2026; (ii) Commvault knew or recklessly disregarded the impact that different types of sales would have on its ARR growth; and (iii) the variation in net ARR growth is strongly based on the type of sale Commvault is making, thus, Commvault's projected net new ARR should not have been determined without properly factoring in sale type. The Commvault class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 27, 2026, Commvault released its third quarter 2026 financial results, revealing net new ARR of $39 million, below Commvault's previously guided $45 million. On this news, the price of Commvault stock fell more than 31%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Commvault securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Commvault class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Commvault class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Commvault class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Commvault class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors -- $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Ken Dolitsky, Esq. Michael Albert, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 851-7783 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: McCullar Balks at Untimely Gas Proceed Payments ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEBORAH MCCULLAR, TRUSTEE OF THE SUNNY J MILLER LIVING TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-00163 (D. Wyo., May 18, 2026) is a class action concerns Conoco's ongoing violation of Wyoming law related to the interest owed on untimely payments of oil-and-gas proceeds and Conoco's failure to comply with the check stub reporting requirements under Wyoming law. According to the complaint, Wyoming statute requires operators like Conoco to pay proceeds derived from oil-and-gas production not later than six months after the first day of the month following the date of first sale and thereafter not later than 60 days after the end of the calendar month within which the oil-and-gas production is sold. When operators like Conoco fail to timely place proceeds in escrow, that failure makes "them liable for interest pursuant to the statute," regardless of the reason why the proceeds were escrowed. Conoco does not automatically pay the interest it owes on untimely payments Wyoming statute also requires Conoco to provide a form of "check stub" that provides "on a regular monthly basis" certain information. In the event Conoco fails to provide the statutorily required information on the check stub, Conoco is "liable to the affected royalty, overriding royalty or other nonworking interest owner in the amount of one hundred ($100) per month that complete reporting is not provided to the interest owner." ConocoPhillips Company is an American multinational corporation engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and production. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brady L. Smith, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW One Leadership Square, Suite 1320N 211 N. Robinson Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: Brady@BLSmithLaw.com - and - S. Gregory Thomas, Esq. THOMAS THOMAS & THRALL, LLC PO Box 337 Gillette, WY 82717-0337 Telephone: (307) 257-5298 E-mail: greg@tripletlaw.org CONSOLIDATED WELLSITE: Hubbard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Cody Hubbard, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. CONSOLIDATED WELLSITE SERVICES LLC, Case No. 7:26-cv-00189 (W.D. Tex., May 8, 2026), is brought against Defendant seeking unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The Plaintiff and Snubbers typically work at least 40 hours per workweek. Snubbers typically worked multiple-day shifts away from their home communities. Because the worksites were away from their home communities, Plaintiff and Snubbers typically stayed overnight in company provided lodging during the scheduled work rotations. The Defendant did not record the time Plaintiff and Snubbers spent traveling between company-provided lodging and the job site, time spent waiting for transportation, or time spent attending pre-shift or cross-shift meetings. As a result of these practices, the Plaintiff and Snubbers worked hours that were not recorded or compensated. At all material times, the Defendant willfully deprived the Plaintiff and Snubbers of proper wages, including overtime wages. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff and Snubbers were working overtime hours and hours for which they were not compensated at an overtime rate when they traveled to job sites, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant along with other Operators, Snubbing Operator, Lead Hand, Ground Hand, Basket Hand, Roughneck, Tong Hand, and Green Hats (collectively "Snubbers"). CWS provides snubbing services to their customers in multiple states, including Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town & Country Blvd., Suite 500, Houston, TX 77024 Phone: (713) 223–8855 Email: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 26 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BALDINO-MILLER, on behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved employees, v. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-01613-KES-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part motion to continue discovery and case deadlines; or, in the alternative, for a case management conference and temporary stay of current deadlines: 1. The Plaintiff Amanda Baldino-Miller's motion to continue the March 2, 2026, written discovery cutoff in the court's second amended scheduling order is denied; 2. The court will grant-in-part the requested extension for time to file a motion to certify her class action, but on a timeline different than is proposed in the Plaintiff's moving papers; 3. The court sets the following amended dates for class certification: A. Class Certification Written Discovery Cutoff: Concluded B. Class Certification Motion Filing Deadline: June 26, 2026 C. Class Certification Opposition Deadline: July 31, 2026 D. Class Certification Reply Deadline: Sept. 11, 2026 E. Class Certification Motion Hearing: Sept. 25, 2026 Courtroom 8 (FJS) 9:00 AM. 4. Discovery on the Plaintiff's individual claims shall be held in abeyance from June 26, 2026, through Sept. 11, 2026, during class certification briefing; and 5. The Plaintiff's April 6, 2026, motion to compel further responses to discovery will be construed as a motion to reopen discovery and to compel. The court will address that motion once it is briefed. The parties should proceed with their preparations to brief the motion for class certification on the schedule set forth above. The lack of progress in the more distant past coupled with the failure to abide by the recent voluntary and self-imposed timeline persuades the court that extending the schedule yet again will result in yet another round of delay. This case was removed to federal court some thirty months ago. The court finds that further extensions of the class certification discovery and briefing deadlines contradict Rule 23(c)(1)(A)'s directive that the court determine whether to certify the matter as a class action at an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative. Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UOIica at no extra charge.[CC] CURRENEX INC: Allowed to Seal Certain Exhibit in EFC Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edmar Financial Company, LLC et al v. Currenex, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Kaplan entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal Exhibit B to Defendants' forthcoming response. Exhibit B contains excerpts from the transcript of the Feb. 6, 2026 deposition of Peter Reiss, the Defendants' damages expert, which was previously sealed pursuant to the Court's March 2, 2026 Order. This deposition transcript reflects the Defendants' commercially sensitive and proprietary information. Currenex provides an independent global currency exchange to institutional buyers and sellers around the world. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EJ7DSr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Eric Kuwana, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 Facsimile: (212) 210-9444 E-mail: eric.kuwana@alston.com DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Colon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chris Colon, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., an unknown business entity, GMRI, INC., Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV011219 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- https://www.darden.com/ -- is an American multi-brand restaurant operator headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP, 2000 Powell St Ste 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608-1863 Phone: 415-421-7100 Fax: 415-421-7105 DEVON ENERGY: Kunneman Sues Over Non-Payment of Gas Royalties ------------------------------------------------------------- KUNNEMAN PROPERTIES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION; and DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00131-DES (E.D. Okla., May 4, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and constituents of the gas stream produced from wells through improper accounting methods, such as not paying on the starting price for gas products but instead taking improper deductions, and by failing to account for and pay royalties, all as more fully described below. Devon Energy Corp. provides oil and natural gas exploration and production services. The Company offers services such as purchasing and developing oil and natural gas properties, exploring oil and natural gas reserves, and optimizing production operations to control costs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Email: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com – and – Rex A. Sharp, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com DOXIMITY INC: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for July 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thayer, v. Doximity, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01206-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: May 22, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Apr. 6, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 9, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Jan. 29, 2027 Motion for class certification: Hearing: July 20, 2027, 2:00 p.m. [in person] Reply: June 25, 2027 Opposition: June 4, 2027 Motion due: Apr. 30, 2027 The Defendant is an online networking service for medical professionals. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kRvdJs at no extra charge.[CC] EADEM INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eadem, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05364 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://eadem.co to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete transaction on the website. Moreover, the Defendant failed and refused to remove access barriers to the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Eadem, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers skincare and lip care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ELARA CARING: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Kirby Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Kirby, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Elara Caring PCS Louisiana Holdings, LLC d/b/a Elara Caring, Case No. 3:26-cv-01613-D (N.D. Tex., May 18, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard hers and other similarly situated patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information from criminal hackers. According to Defendant, between November 4 and 6, 2025 and November 14 and 17, 2025, an unauthorized individual accessed and stole documents belonging to Defendant's patients from a third-vendor's system, which included the theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a provider of home-based healthcare throughout 18 states and has approximately 26,000 caregivers in more than 200 locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 5621 S. Arch Bridge Ct Arlington, TX 76017 4200 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com thilton@sirillp.com ESSENTIAL HOSPITALITY: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Enrique Garcia Morales, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ESSENTIAL HOSPITALITY W 77 LLC d/b/a ESSENTIAL BY CHRISTOPHE, and CHRISTOPHE BELLANCA, Case No. 1:26-cv-03838 (S.D.N.Y, May 8, 2026), is brought alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that he and similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, including overtime, due to Defendants invalid tip credit policy; unpaid minimum wages, including overtime, due to Defendants' time shaving policy; unlawful wage deductions and unreimbursed uniform expenses; liquidated damages; statutory penalties due to violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"); and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants' failure to provide a compliant tip credit notice independently invalidates Defendants' tip credit for the entirety of the relevant period and entitles Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members to recover the difference between the cash wages actually paid and the full applicable minimum wage for every hour worked. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to pay wages to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members for all hours they worked, due to Defendants' policy of time shaving, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a Runner at Defendants' Essential by Christophe. ESSENTIAL HOSPITALITY W 77 LLC is a domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA: Smith Files Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., et al. The case is styled as Xochilt Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., Essilor of America Inc., Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02786-JAM (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. EssilorLuxottica USA Inc. -- https://www.essilorluxottica.com/en/ -- designs, produces and markets ophthalmic lenses, equipment and instruments, prescription glasses and sunglasses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0271 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com EUREKA RESTAURANT: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eureka Restaurant Group, LLC. The case is styled as Breyner Corona, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Eureka Restaurant Group, LLC, Case No. 26STCV14814 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Eureka! Restaurant Group -- https://eurekarestaurantgroup.com/ -- is a full-service hamburger restaurant group based in Hawthorne, California.[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 EVERGY INC: Class Settlement in Doll Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK L. DOLL, et al., v. EVERGY, INC., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00043-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Bough entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and appointment of Analytics Consulting, LLC as class action settlement administrator. -- A hearing will be held on a date no sooner than 120 calendar days after the date of the preliminary approval order. -- The Court approves and orders that Analytics Consulting, LLC shall be the Settlement Administrator responsible for carrying out the responsibilities set forth in the Settlement Agreement. -- The Court approves the form of the CAFA Notice attached as Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement and orders that upon mailing of the CAFA Notices, the Defendants shall have fulfilled their obligations under CAFA. This litigation arose out of claims of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") asserted against the Defendants, relating to the management of the Evergy, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan"). The following Class has previously been certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1). The Class consists of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Evergy, Inc. 401(k) Plan who invested in any of the American Century Target Date Funds (excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan) during the Class Period." The Class is a non-opt out class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). (Id.) The Class Period is defined as Jan. 22, 2019, through the date the Court enters the preliminary approval order. Evergy engages in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H3bhff at no extra charge.[CC] EXPEDITED TRAVEL: Alfonzetti Case Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfonzetti v. Expedited Travel, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03216-DEH-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order referring action to Magistrate Judge for the following purposes: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) -- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: class certification. Expedited Travel provides Consumer and corporate travel solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cXy2Yk at no extra charge.[CC] EXPEDITED TRAVEL: Shipp Files Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Expedited Travel, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Shipp, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Expedited Travel, LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80539-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Expedited Travel, LLC -- https://www.expeditedtravel.com/ -- provides Consumer and corporate travel solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com FCA US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Equal Employment Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, v. FCA US, L.L.C., Case No. 5:25-cv-10174-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Levy entered an order: -- Denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or for a more definite statement as to the Plaintiff's complaint, and -- Granting the motion to intervene filed by putative Intervening Plaintiffs Cherae White, Jennifer Springfield, and LaKaela Harvey. The Intervening Plaintiffs are directed to file their proposed intervening complaint on the docket. The Court disagrees with the Defendant's assertion that the complaint fails to provide adequate notice of the EEOC's claims. The Court permits Intervening Plaintiffs to intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) on grounds that they made a timely motion and are asserting claims that share with the main action a common question of law or fact. The EEOC filed its Complaint with this Court on Jan. 17, 2025. The Complaint alleges that since at least December of 2020, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Detroit, Michigan Assembly Plant location in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2(a)(1). The Defendant is an automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VlUQQW at no extra charge.[CC] FJ MANAGEMENT INC: Wolfe Suit Transferred to D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Wolfe, Individually and on behalf of the FJ Management Inc, 401k Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan v. FJ Management, FJ Management Inc., Retirement Committee, State Street Bank and Trust Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-10954 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00383-RJS-DAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor. FJ Management Inc. -- https://fjmgt.com/ -- is a Utah-based private holding company that manages a diverse portfolio of petroleum, healthcare, and hospitality related assets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL PC 10 Exchange Pl., Ste. 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com FREEMAN MARTIN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.M.L & K.G.S, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. FREEMAN F. MARTIN in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, Case No. 1:26-cv-01170-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ezra entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted and the Defendant is preliminarily enjoined from enforcing Texas Penal Code sections 51.03 and 51.04 and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 5B.002 and 5B.003. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is granted in part and held in abeyance in part, and thus the Defendant's motion to continue hearing on class certification is denied as moot. It is finally ordered that the Defendant's motions to strike are denied. At this stage of the litigation, and given the pendency of the motion for preliminary injunction and imminent enforcement of provisions of SB 4 that this Court has determined are likely preempted, the Plaintiffs have presented a strong case as to provisionally certifying the class, the Court says. The Court adds that the Plaintiffs and provisional class members are at risk of suffering grave, irreparable harm were SB 4 to take effect in the form of arrests, prosecutions, and removals under a likely unlawful statute. The balance of equities thus unequivocally weighs in favor of denying the stay pending appeal. The Plaintiffs advance the following class definition: "All noncitizens who now or in the future enter, attempt to enter, or are found in the state of Texas after they have been denied admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United States, or after they have departed from the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal was outstanding." A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k0RINJ at no extra charge.[CC] FRITO-LAY INC: Sklyar Sues Over Misleading Product Claims --------------------------------------------------------- EDUARD SKLYAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02817 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and for breach of express warranty in connection with the Defendant's Lay's Poppables' false labeling. The Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that its Lay's Poppables product contains "no artificial flavors." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the Defendant's claims are false because the product contains synthetic flavors, including citric acid and lactic acid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to require Defendant to change its labeling claims and to provide consumers with monetary relief for its deceptive and misleading product claims. Headquartered in Plano, TX, Frito-Lay, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells snack foods. [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 FUNKO LLC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Dirksen Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PETER DIRKSEN, AVIVA COPAKEN, and STEVEN BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FUNKO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01585 (W.D. Wash., May 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for placing and transmitting cookies and other third-party tracking technologies which are capable of intercepting and transmitting users' data, including communications. Funko operates a commercial website https://funko.com/ through which users browse and purchase collectible figures, apparel, accessories, and related merchandise; explore exclusive and limited-edition product releases; create and manage user accounts; access order history and customer support services; and engage with promotions, loyalty programs, and special offers. Like many modern websites, the Website displays a cookie banner and a "cookie preferences" interface purporting to give users meaningful control over what data the Website shares with third parties. However, Defendant's assurances are false, the complaint asserts. 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. The Website's Cookie Banner and Cookie Settings materially mislead users about the use and sale of their data. Defendant lulls users into a false sense of security, privacy, and control while simultaneously enabling third parties to monitor, intercept, and transmit users' online behavior in real time. Such conduct deprives users of control over their Sensitive Information and violates fundamental privacy protections, the complaint contends. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated users harmed by Defendant's deceptive and unlawful practices. The Plaintiffs were subjected to the unauthorized disclosure of their Sensitive Information and deprived of the benefit of their privacy choices. Defendant's conduct amounts to a violation of the federal Wiretap Act; California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), including (illegal wiretapping and unlawful use of a pen register or trap and trace device); California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); the California Constitution; and common law, including invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud and deceit, and unjust enrichment, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Peter Dirksen accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in California. Defendant Funko, LLC is a pop culture lifestyle brand, famous for its Pop! Vinyl figures featuring distinctive large heads and small bodies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA, 98101 Telephone: 206-682-5600 Facsimile: 206.682.2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.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 GEN DIGITAL: Garcia Sues Over Spamming and Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEN DIGITAL INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a NORTON.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04989 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2026) arises from the Defendant's misleading spam e-mail advertising. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, the Plaintiff was allegedly funneled to Defendant's website at NORTON.COM. where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings three causes of action: (i) violations of the California Business & Professions Code; (ii) violations of the California Trap and Trace Law; and (3) California Intrusion upon Seclusion. Based in Arizona, Gen Digital Inc. is an internet security company that does business as NORTON.COM. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com GLENDORA SURGERY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Glendora Surgery Center data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Glendora Surgery Center data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Glendora Surgery Center Security Incident: What Happened? Glendora Surgery Center has confirmed a data breach that may have compromised patients' personal and protected health information. A notice posted on Glendora Surgery Center’s website states that on December 3, 2025, suspicious activity was detected on the facility's computer network. An investigation with cybersecurity experts revealed that certain files were accessed and taken by an unauthorized actor between November 29 and December 3 of that year. A review of the affected files concluded that the information potentially impacted in the Glendora Surgery Center data breach includes names and medical treatment information. The surgical center is located in Glendora, California. What You Can Do After the Glendora Surgery Center Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Glendora Surgery Center data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Glendora Surgery Center to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] GLOBAL THREAT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Delvis Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GLOBAL THREAT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and KENNETH BOMBACE, Case No. 1:26-cv-03829 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, unreimbursed uniform maintenance costs, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was scheduled to work 40 hours every week. However, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours during those weeks. Plaintiff would work his scheduled shift and additional hours which went uncompensated. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members also worked schedules over 40 hours per week. At all times, Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members worked hours in excess of their scheduled hours for which they were not compensated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a security guard in July 2025. The Defendants operate all the sites for which they provides security services through the same executive management team.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 GOFUNDME INC: Watson Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Breanna Watson and Amy Forehand, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOFUNDME INC., Case No. 26-CIV-02688 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04272. The Plaintiffs allege causes of action under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), and New York's Deceptive Practices Act ("DPA"). The Plaintiffs also allege tortious interference of contract and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin Berkowitz, Esq. Matan Shacham, Esq. Nicholas D. Marais, Esq. Melissa Cornell, Esq. Drew H. Washington, Esq. Alexa Daugherty, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Phone: 415 391 5400 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 Email: bberkowitz@keker.com mshacham@keker.com nmarais@keker.com mcornell@keker.com dwashington@keker.com adaugherty@keker.com GOLF & TENNIS: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLF & TENNIS PRO SHOP, INC. d/b/a PGA TOUR SUPERSTORE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02471 (D. Minn., May 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.pgatoursuperstore.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. Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. provides players club, golf lessons, club repair, in store events, and supplier resources services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GOODWIN UNIVERSITY: Hamlin Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Info --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY HAMLIN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GOODWIN UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00716 (D. Conn., May 8, 2026) arises from failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information. On December 4, 2025, the Defendant experienced a disruption to its IT Network. On January 7, 2026, The Defendant's investigation revealed that certain files may have been acquired without authorization. The types of private information accessed and/or acquired in the data breach included highly sensitive information such as: names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, State IDs, USCIS-Alien Registration numbers, biometric information, and personal health information. However, Defendant only began sending notice letters to impacted individuals on or around April 16, 2026--more than four months after learning about the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings four causes of action: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies. Based in East Hartford, CT, Goodwin University, Inc. operates as a private educational institution. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement in Curley Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL CURLEY, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01735-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Westmore entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement. The Court (1) certifies the class for settlement purposes only; (2) approves the settlement agreement and authorizes the distribution of funds as set forth in the Plan of Allocation; (3) confirms the appointment of Plaintiffs Curley, Lewis, and Mayon as Settlement Class Representatives, Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., Ben Crump Law, PLLC, and San Law, APC as Settlement Class Counsel, and Atticus Administration, LLC as Claims Administrator; (4) appoints Lynn Cohn as Trustee, as set forth in a separate order, and approves the Trustee’s administration costs in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000; (5) approves $12,500,000 in attorneys' fees and $183,346.17 in costs, to Settlement Class Counsel; (6) approves Atticus Administration's settlement administration costs in an amount not to exceed $40,000; and (7) approves $50,000 each to Plaintiffs Curley, Lewis, and Mayon as incentive awards. On March 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the Defendant Google LLC alleging race discrimination. The parties settled and, on December 7, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval. The Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of: "All Google employees identified in Google's records produced to Settlement Class Counsel on Nov. 20, 2024 as Black or Black+ who worked in job levels 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 in a job located in California at any time from March 18, 2018 through Dec. 31, 2023, and/or job levels 3, 4, 5, and/or 6 in a job located in New York at any time from Oct. 15, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2023, excluding employees who (a) exclusively held a job that Google's records identified as being within a Legal job family or subfamily, or (b) are identified in Google's records as having executed a general release of claims at any time between Oct. 15, 2017 (for New York employees) or March 18, 2018 (for California employees) and the Preliminary Approval Date." A list of the individuals who meet this definition are included in the Settlement Class List. Google operates as a global technology company specializing in internet related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QfdLsW at no extra charge.[CC] GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Thurber Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Thurber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING HOLDING COMPANY, MICHAEL P. DOSS, and STEPHEN R. SCHERGER, Case No. 1:26-cv-03790 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2026), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Graphic Packaging securities between February 4, 2025 and February 2, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its former top officials. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Graphic Packaging was experiencing, inter alia, significant inventory management issues, as well as significantly reduced demand and volumes and increased costs; Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of the foregoing issues, which were likely to, and did, have a material negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; Defendants likewise overstated the strength and sustainability of the Company's business model and operations, as well as its ability to weather ongoing macroeconomic headwinds; accordingly, the Company's previously issued FY 2025 financial guidance was unreliable and/or unrealistic; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on May 1, 2025, when Graphic Packaging issued a press release reporting its first quarter ("Q1") 2025 financial results. On this news, Graphic Packaging's stock price fell $3.94 per share, or 15.57%, to close at $21.37 per share on May 1, 2025. Then, on February 3, 2026, Graphic Packaging issued a press release reporting its fourth quarter ("Q4") and FY 2025 financial results. On this news, Graphic Packaging's stock price fell $2.36 per share, or 15.97%, to close at $12.42 per share on February 3, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Graphic Packaging securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Graphic Packaging, together with its subsidiaries, designs, produces, and sells consumer packaging products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com GRINNELL COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grinnell College, writing for News From the States, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against Iowa's Grinnell College, alleging the school "secretly sells, shares and tracks" data collected from users of its website. Attorneys for Eyal Hanfling, a resident of New York, are seeking class-action status for the civil lawsuit they have filed against Grinnell College in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The lawsuit claims the private, liberal arts college operates a website through which users can apply for admission and financial aid, create and manage user accounts through college-related portals, and access educational, administrative, and support services. The website allegedly displays a "cookie banner" purporting to give users meaningful control over what data the site shares with third parties, with users informed that the site will not use cookies to track users unless they click a button marked, "I Agree." The lawsuit claims that assurance is false. "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," the lawsuit asserts. According to the lawsuit, the site's tools collect detailed information from users, including data entered into search fields, forms that are submitted, email addresses, and approximate geolocation information. The site then uses "tools which transmit users' sensitive information to the advertising, social media, and analytics companies that designed and operate" those same tools, such as TikTok, Meta, Google and Reddit, the lawsuit alleges. The cookie banner "misleads users about the use, sharing, and sale of their data," the lawsuit asserts, adding that the site "lulls users into a false sense of security, privacy, and control, while simultaneously enabling third parties to monitor, intercept, and transmit users' online behavior in real time without their consent." The lawsuit alleges that in July 2024, Eyal Hanfling visited the college's website and that his information was then shared with third parties. The lawsuit seeks damages for Hanfling and a putative class of similarly situated users who were allegedly harmed by the site. "The unauthorized collection of a person's browsing activity, website interactions, and personal identifiers constitutes an invasion of the most basic expectation of privacy in one's online life," the lawsuit alleges. "When a company affirmatively represents that users may control whether their data is sold, shared, or tracked, but then secretly sells, shares, and tracks that data anyway, the misconduct is especially egregious." The lawsuit alleges violations of New York state's Deceptive Acts and Practices Act and False Advertising Law, as well as violations of the federal Wiretap Act and common law violations related to privacy, fraud, and misrepresentation. The lawsuit claims the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and that number of potential class members is more than 100, giving the federal court jurisdiction in the matter. The plaintiff is represented by West Des Moines attorneys J. Barton Goplerud and Brian O. Marty of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese. Grinnell College has yet to file a response to the lawsuit. The school's Media Relations office did not immediately return messages Tuesday, May 12, seeking comment. HEAVEN HILL: Dubreu Sues Over Falsely Labeled Product ----------------------------------------------------- Mariana Dubreu and Traian Sava, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERIES, INC. d/b/a PREMIUM IMPORTS, LTD. and TIERRA DE AGAVES, S.A. de C.V., Case No. 1:26-cv-05330 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for deceiving American consumers by selling tequila falsely labeled as "100% agave" when it is not, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The Defendants market Lunazul Tequila as "100% agave" to Illinois and nationwide consumers, but the product does not live up to that claim. The false "100% agave" claim goes to the very essence of what Lunazul is sold as. Premium tequila consumers seek out the designation precisely because it carries well-understood qualitative meaning. Defendants exploit that consumer expectation to extract prices well above those charged for tequilas that honestly disclose a blended sugar composition. During the Class Period, Defendants extracted a price premium from consumers by labeling Lunazul Tequila "100% agave" or "100% de agave" when it is not. This lawsuit challenges that conduct. The Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased Lunazul Tequila in reliance on the "100% de agave" representation and paid more for the product than they would have paid for an honestly labeled blended-sugar tequila. That price premium is their economic injury. The Plaintiffs purchased tequila and would purchase Lunazul Tequila again, but if they cannot rely on Defendants' '100% agave' representation, they face an ongoing risk of repeat deception. The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover those damages and to obtain restitution, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling, and all other appropriate relief, on behalf of themselves and every similarly situated consumer who was overcharged for a bottle of Lunazul Tequila, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Lunazul Tequila at a retail store. The Defendants import and sell Lunazul Tequila, a line of spirits they market as premium "100% agave" products, in Illinois, California, and across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dragos Butucea-Boscoianu, Esq. ACCESS LAW GROUP 1480 Renaissance Dr., Suite 308 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Phone: (312) 880-7279 Email: Drey@AccessLaw.us HILTON WORLDWIDE: Employs Fragrance in Facilities, Mayer Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ELLIOTT MAYER, KAREN RIGGENBACH, ALEGRA LOEWENSTEIN and AGNIESZKA UMINSKA PILAT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-04756 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) seeks remedies for the Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities. The Defendant claims to offer lodging, restaurant and bar service, pool and exercise facilities to the general public, including Representative Plaintiff, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, 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. According to the complaint, despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of Synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said 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. "Synthetic fragranced consumer product" is a base product to which synthetic fragrance compounds are then added and/or is a product that is largely comprised of fragrance. Synthetic fragranced consumer products are used regularly by hotels, banks, restaurants, wineries, medical and dental facilities, brick and mortal retail stores and a multitude of other businesses across a host of industries to impart what they purport to be a pleasant, or at least unique, aroma and/or to mask unpleasant odors, mold, etc. Among other insidious realities, by use of these fragranced compounds, visitors are left unaware of other dangerous conditions (e.g., deadly mold). Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. is an American multinational hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels, resorts, and timeshare properties.[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 HISENSE USA: Severino et al. Sue Over Consumers' Privacy Invasion ----------------------------------------------------------------- STACEE SEVERINO, JILL COHEN, KENNEY REESE, SHARI ETCHEBARREN, and BRANDY MINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HISENSE USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04379-RMI (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2026) alleges systematic, ongoing, and unlawful export of bulk sensitive personal data of millions of Americans. The Plaintiffs maintain that through automatic content recognition (ACR) technology embedded in Smart TVs, Hisense and its ACR subsidiary, VIDAA USA, Inc. capture every sound and image displayed on the screen as often as every 500 milliseconds. In addition, Hisense and VIDAA link that data to persistent device-, household-, and cross-device identifiers, and re-distribute the resulting bulk sensitive personal data to a network of downstream ad-tech, identity-graph, databroker, and measurement partners--and to Hisense's Chinese parents and affiliates, which are subject to Chinese law (including Article 7 of the PRC National Intelligence Law) compelling them to share that data with the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party on demand. As a result, the Plaintiffs and millions of Hisense Smart TV owners have had their viewing behavior secretly monitored and monetized without their knowledge or consent. Thus, Hisense's federal and state privacy laws and constitutes an unlawful invasion of consumers' privacy, says the suit. Hisense USA Corporation is the U.S. operating arm of Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., a state-owned enterprise headquartered in Qingdao, People's Republic of China and majority-owned and controlled, directly and indirectly, by the Qingdao municipal government and other Chinese state-owned entities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melisa A. Rosadini-Knott, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1923 Telephone: (323) 982-4109 E-mail: mrosadini@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (314) 669-3600 E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Honda Odyssey's Airbag Defects ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Honda has knowingly concealed a dangerous side airbag defect in hundreds of thousands of 2018-2022 Odyssey minivans, a problem that can cause the airbags to deploy without warning and in the absence of any collision. According to the 112-page lawsuit, the Honda Odyssey vehicles at issue are equipped with a defective Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) that can cause the side curtain and side thorax airbags to deploy "spontaneously." The complaint says that consumers have reported experiencing the problem even in conditions with no apparent trigger, such as while slowing down, driving on a flat road, and refueling a stationary vehicle. The filing alleges that Honda has known of the SRS defect since at least May 2019 from a plethora of consumer complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and "Honda's own employees and dealers" having submitted at least one early warning report of the problem to the NHTSA. The lawsuit says Odyssey drivers have reported serious injuries that include burns from the explosive force of airbag deployment, nausea and lightheadedness from breathing chemical fumes released when the airbags are deployed, and hearing loss. The minivans at issue in the Honda class action lawsuit include all 2018-2022 Honda Odyssey minivans (the "class vehicles"), an estimated 441,002 Odyssey minivans nationwide, the suit says, citing the NHTSA, which opened an investigation into the Honda Odyssey airbag problems in 2025. "Had Plaintiffs and Class members known the truth about the defect, they would not have purchased the vehicles at the prices they paid, or at all," the class action lawsuit states. Honda Odyssey not as safe or reliable for families as advertised, class action suit claims The lawsuit relays that Honda Odyssey minivans are among the most popular family vehicles on the market, with the automaker's marketing and advertising emphasizing "Safety Features and Performance for the Family." Per the suit, the "suite of advanced safety and driver-assistive technologies" in each Honda Odyssey includes three-row side-curtain airbags for "all outboard seating positions" designed to provide head, neck and torso protection during a side collision. According to the case, Honda has even partnered with Disney for promotions, sweepstakes and ad campaigns, effectively cementing the Odyssey's "brand identity as a family vehicle." Indeed, the case highlights that the Odyssey's "core consumers" are young families who chose the vehicle primarily because of the touted safety benefits and Honda's positioning of the Odyssey as the "Ultimate Family Vehicle" and the "most popular" minivan for buyers under 35. Although the side airbags are touted by Honda as a key safety feature, the lawsuit alleges that the Odyssey side airbags do not provide the advertised safety benefits due to their propensity to deploy suddenly in the absence of any triggering event. The complaint claims that Honda has also failed to properly investigate the source of the alleged SRS defect. Per the case, one consumer indicated that the automaker "claimed they couldn't find any reason" for the problem and declined to cover repairs. Furthermore, the case says that Honda reportedly told consumers that it is "normal" for an Odyssey side airbag to improperly activate, including in common situations such as driving over a speed bump or traveling at the relatively slow speed of 26 miles per hour. The suit charges that Honda's "uniform pattern of deflection" with regard to the SRS side airbag defect indicates a companywide approach of refusing to acknowledge the problem. The case says that in addition to sustaining physical injuries when the side airbags deploy, drivers are put at further risk when the deployed airbags block a clear view of the side windows and mirrors, restricting visibility and increasing the likelihood of a dangerous accident. Honda delayed airbag recall, filing says Per the complaint, Honda announced on April 9, 2026 a recall of more than 400,000 2018-2022 Odyssey vehicles, citing concerns that the SRS system used "incorrect deployment parameters" for the side airbags, which could lead to "inadvertent" deployment when the vehicle encounters potholes, speed bumps, or other road debris. The recall notice states that Honda first received an incident report about the SRS system problem as early as November 15, 2017. By the time the recall was issued last month, Honda had received at least 130 warranty claims and 25 reports of injury associated with the SRS system defect, the filing states. ". . . Honda waited several years, with voluminous knowledge of the Defect, before agreeing to any recall at all," the suit states. "There is no indication as of the filing of this complaint that Honda's recall is fully effective, and indeed its technical description appears to envision something less than a full replacement and repair of the defective airbag system in the Class Vehicles." According to the filing, Honda, during the time period at issue, announced several recalls for Odyssey minivans to address other airbag-related defects, including a defective airbag sensor, while failing to address the apparent "pattern of spontaneous deployments." Lawsuit says that once side airbag defect manifests, SRS system is rendered "inoperable" The class action lawsuit goes on to stress that once the defect manifests and the side airbags are improperly deployed, the minivan's entire SRS system is rendered "inoperable" until it is repaired, depriving consumers of the benefit of the touted safety features. The filing says that repairing the Odyssey side airbags can reportedly cost between $3,000 and $11,000 out of pocket, as Honda has reportedly refused to cover repairs under the vehicle warranty. Even if repairs were covered by the warranty, consumers have been left with defective vehicles that are diminished in value, the lawsuit states. The case says the SRS system defect is "concentrated" in Honda Odyssey vehicles; comparable minivans -- such as the Toyota Sienna, Kia Carnival and Chrysler Pacifica -- have no "analogous" complaints on the NHTSA database, according to the suit. Who is covered by the Honda Odyssey side airbag defect lawsuit? The Honda Odyssey class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals or entities that purchased or leased one or more model year 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and/or 2022 Honda Odyssey vehicles in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Texas at any time from May 25, 2017 to the present. How do I sign up for the Honda Odyssey side airbag lawsuit? Generally, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it is initially filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, class members will typically receive written notice of the deal via mail and/or email with instructions on any next steps and details about their legal rights. Keep in mind that some class action lawsuits take years to settle. If you've purchased or leased a 2018-2022 Honda Odyssey, or just want to stay informed about class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] HV GLOBAL: Ramsey Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled 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. 26CV000997, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Monterey, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-04228 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in Florida, HV Global Management Corporation provides real estate services, vacation ownership (timeshares), exchange programs, and resort property management. [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 Boulevard, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 493-3988 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: jozmer@kcozlaw.com scarr@kcozlaw.com psherman@kcozlaw.com INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: Jenks Sues Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- CARRIE JENKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a LUXOR SCIENTIFIC, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-01874-TMC (D.S.C., May 7, 2026) seeks to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained on behalf of its clients, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to its Clients and their affected patients such as Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. As a result of Defendant's delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for more than six months that their private information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment. Based in Greenville, SC, Innovative Scientific Solutions, LLC is clinical and research laboratory that serves healthcare and research organizations in South Carolina and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1901 Main Street 18th Floor #3037 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (929) 474-6448 E-mail: nwilliams@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue, Suite 1300- #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Ivey Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ EMMA IVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-04292 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2026) seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated students across the country due to Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the theft of their personally identifying information ("PII") such as the names, e-mail addresses, student messages with professors and administrators, student identification numbers, and grades. The complaint relates that by obtaining, collecting, and storing the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting the PII from disclosure. On May 1, 2026, Defendant confirmed that "hackers exploited a vulnerability to gain access, forcing the company to shut down parts of its service, including Canvas Data 2 and Canvas Beta. Then, on May 7, 2026, Defendant again "identified additional unauthorized activity tied to the same incident" as April 30. As Defendant admitted, the second incident occurred in the same manner the first incident did a week earlier. Despite having already been the victim of a cyber-attack and witness to another on its competitor, Defendant failed to take reasonable steps when it initially noticed a threat on its system. Just like the first instance, the second breach was made through Defendant's "Free-for-Teacher service," where the hackers were able to "exploit an issue related" to Defendant's service, asserts the complaint. The Defendant breached the implied contracts it made with Plaintiff and the Class by failing to safeguard and protect their personal information, by failing to delete the information of Plaintiff and the Class once the relationship ended, and by failing to provide accurate notice to them that personal information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of the implied contracts, Plaintiff and Class Members sustained damages including the loss of the benefit of the bargain, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members, hence, seek compensatory, consequential, and nominal damages suffered as a result of the Data Breach. Plaintiff and Class Members also seek injunctive relief requiring Defendant to, inter alia, (i) strengthen its data security systems and monitoring procedures; (ii) submit to future annual audits of those systems and monitoring procedures; and (iii) immediately provide adequate credit monitoring to all Class Members. Plaintiff Emma Ivey is a student at California State University, Monterey Bay ("CSUMB"), a public state university within the California State University System. Defendant Instructure Holdings, Inc. owns, operates, develops, and maintains the Canvas LMS system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Islas Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB ISLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00382-DBB (D. Utah, May 7, 2026) asserts claims arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The ransom group, ShinyHunters, claims that it gained access Defendant's network and acquired 275 million individuals data ranging from students, teachers, and other staff containing personally identifiable information. The Defendant has yet to formally notify impacted individuals about the Data Breach. The Defendant's failure to timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members further exacerbates their circumstances. Furthermore, Defendant's delay in notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach is in direct violation of Defendant's responsibilities under the data breach notification statute in Utah. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT, Instructure, Inc. owns and operates a web-based learning management system that provides services for schools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Brown Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CIARA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00399 (D. Utah, May 8, 2026) arises out of a targeted cyberattack and data breach caused by Instructure's failure to secure and safeguard the personal identifying information ("PII") of approximately 275 million individuals (minor students, school and school district employees, and other Canvas users at educational institutions around the world), including their names, email addresses, student ID numbers, and private messages stored on Instructure's Canvas learning management system ("LMS"). Defendant Instructure, Inc. is an education technology company best known for its Canvas LMS, which thousands of K–12 school districts, colleges, universities, and other educational institutions use to manage coursework, assignments, grades, communications, and other aspects of online and blended learning. Instructure required Plaintiff and Class Members to provide their PII as a condition of receiving products and services from Instructure. Instructure markets Canvas as a trusted, reliable, and secure platform. It is well aware that student data and educational records are subject to heightened privacy expectations and regulatory obligations, and that exposure of such data can cause severe and long-lasting harms to affected individuals, particularly minors. On May 3, 2026, ShinyHunters, an infamous group of ransom hackers responsible for numerous cyberattacks, including another significant data hack in the education sector (PowerSchool), claimed credit for the Data Breach on Instructure's system. ShinyHunters' post boasted that the stolen data contained the personal conversations and PII of students, teachers, and other individuals from nearly 9,000 educational institutions worldwide. The scale and scope of this unauthorized access alone is clear evidence that Instructure failed to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. Instructure's failure to remediate the Data Breach culminated in a second public intrusion (and its third overall) by the same threat actor on May 7, 2026. The attackers gave Instructure and the affected schools until May 12, 2026 to pay a ransom to prevent ShinyHunters from leaking the stolen data. As a result of the Data Breach, in addition to actual harm, such as fraud and identity theft, Plaintiff and Class Members face a clear and present risk of imminent and certainly impending harm, including, but not limited to, a loss of their valuable data, time and opportunity costs, and mitigation expenses over the misuse of their PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action against Instructure, seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion; (iv) declaratory judgment; (v) breach of implied contract; (vi) unjust enrichment; and (vii) violation of state consumer protection laws. Through these claims, Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief, including improvements to Instructure's data security systems, policies, and practices, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Instructure. Plaintiff Ciara Brown was enrolled as a student at Hinds Community College between 2022 and 2023 and, between 2024 and 2025, Plaintiff Brown was enrolled as a student at Holmes Community College.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Michael J. Miarmi, Esq. Sean A. Petterson, Esq. John D. Maher, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com E-mail: mmiarmi@lchb.com E-mail: spetterson@lchb.com E-mail: jmaher@lchb.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Kira Hessekiel, Esq. Carlynne Wagner, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com E-mail: khessekiel@hausfeld.com E-mail: cwagner@hausfeld.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clarkson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- AUDLISHA CLARKSON, SERENA DELAGARZA and ALEXANDER LESLIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00400 (D. Utah, May 8, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on Plaintiffs and tens of millions of similarly situated persons ("Class Members") due to the Defendant's impermissibly inadequate and unlawful data security, which caused the personal identifying information ("PII") of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on May 1, 2026. The complaint relates that the Defendant received and maintained the PII of its clients', students and teachers, such as individuals' names, email addresses, student ID numbers, messages among user, passwords, dates of birth, government identifiers, or financial information. These records were, and continue to be, stored on Defendant's computer systems. Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breaches and data security compromises, Defendant failed to take appropriate steps to protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII from being compromised. Defendant failed to properly select its information security partners. Defendant failed to ensure fair, reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data security practices to safeguard the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Defendant failed to timely and accurately disclose that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII had been improperly acquired or accessed. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members also suffered emotional distress because of the release of their PII—which they believed would be protected from unauthorized access and disclosure. Now, Plaintiff and Class Members suffer from anxiety about unauthorized parties viewing, selling, and/or using their PII for nefarious purposes like identity theft and fraud, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief--including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and the appointment of an independent and qualified cyber auditor to monitor Defendant's cyber hygiene, all of which will be funded by Defendant. Plaintiffs Audlisha Clarkson, Serena Delagarza and Alexander Leslie are victims of the Data Breach. Defendant Instructure, Inc. is a leading educational technology company, best known for creating Canvas, the world's number one cloud-based Learning Management System (LMS) for schools, universities, and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Wirthlin, Esq. 1208 S 1700 E Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Telephone: (813) 777-2570 E-mail: johnwirthlin@gmail.com - and - Ryan J. McGee, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Riya Sharm, Esq. 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: rmcgee@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Sensitive Private Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00459 (D. Utah., May 19, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and millions of similarly situated individuals due to Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to obtain injunctive relief requiring, among other things, the implementation of security measures sufficient to protect the Sensitive Private Information that remains in the Defendant's custody and control. In that capacity, Instructure has directly and indirectly collected highly sensitive personally identifiable information such as names, email addresses, student identification numbers, the contents of private messages, enrollment data, and individual user records (Sensitive Private Information) from approximately 275 million Instructure users across 9,000 institutions. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with a vast array of such Sensitive Private Information. Taking reasonable, standard precautions against cybercrime and data breaches is a fundamental part of doing business in the modern age -- especially for businesses that routinely collect and store large amounts of PII, like the Sensitive Private Information at issue here. By collecting and maintaining Plaintiff and the Class Members' Sensitive Private Information, Defendant was required by law to exercise reasonable care and comply with industry and statutory requirements to protect that information, the suit contends. The Defendant is an education technology company that develops and operates cloud based software platforms, including the Canvas learning management system, used by educational institutions to store, manage, and deliver data about students and academic programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent O. Hatch, Esq. Adam M. Pace, Esq. HATCH LAW GROUP, PC 22 East 100 South, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 869-1919 E-mail: hatch@hatchpc.com pace@hatchpc.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Hall Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00397-JCB (D. Utah, May 8, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive personal information and education-related private information entrusted to it through Canvas. Defendant Instructure, Inc. is an education technology company that provides Canvas, a cloud-based learning management system used by schools, colleges, universities, instructors, administrators, staff, parents, and students. It stores and maintains a litany of personal information and education-related private information about Canvas users, including names, email addresses, student identification numbers, user roles, user content, system data, log files, and messages among Canvas users. However, the Defendant lost control over that information when an unauthorized actor infiltrated Canvas and obtained users' personal information in a data breach on April 29, 2026. The compromised information confirmed at this time includes names, email addresses, student ID numbers, and messages among Canvas users. On May 7, 2026, Defendant identified additional unauthorized activity tied to the same incident. During the May 7 activity, the unauthorized actor made changes to pages that appeared when some students and teachers were logged in through Canvas. Defendant temporarily took Canvas offline into maintenance mode to contain the activity, investigate, and later confirmed that the unauthorized actor carried out the activity by exploiting an issue related to Defendant's Free-For-Teacher accounts. Following the Data Breach, Defendant temporarily shut down Free-For-Teacher accounts to remove the access path used by the unauthorized actor. Defendant also revoked privileged credentials and access tokens tied to affected systems, deployed additional platform protections, rotated internal keys, restricted token creation pathways, and added monitoring across its platforms. These post-Breach measures support the reasonable inference that Defendant's pre-Breach safeguards were inadequate to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate the unauthorized access before Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised, notes the complaint. On May 5, 2026, Defendant notified impacted organizations of the Data Breach and Defendant directed students, parents, and employees at affected organizations to contact their institutions as the "first point of contact" for information specific to their situation. On May 7, 2026, Plaintiff Hall received an email from the University of Tennessee advising that Canvas was shut down due to a nationwide breach incident. The Data Breach affected educational institutions across the country and disrupted access to Canvas for students and educators, says the suit. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available for Defendant's invasion of privacy. Plaintiff Crystal Hall used Canvas as a student of the University of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: 801-456-7655 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, Iv, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Darrius D. Dixon, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC THE FREEDOM CENTER 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tn 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com ddixon@stranchlaw.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Schneider Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTLE SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC. d/b/a CANVAS BY INSTRUCTURE, a Utah Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00417 (D. Utah, May 12, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information, including names, e-mail addresses, and student identification numbers, as well as messages among users. Despite Instructure's duty to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their private information in Defendant's possession was compromised when a hacker using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters' posted on its dark-web extortion site on or about May 3, 2026, that it stole approximately 3.65 terabytes of sensitive data, belonging to 275 million students, teachers, and other individuals at close to 9,000 education institutions worldwide, and that Instructure's Salesforce instance was also compromised. On the afternoon of May 7, 2026, Canvas was once again rendered nonfunctional. According to multiple student newspapers, a message from ShinyHunters appeared on user dashboards threatening to release stolen data. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action and asserts claims for negligence. Headquartered in Salt Lake, UT, Instructure, Inc. develops and operates Canvas, a cloud-based learning management system used by schools, universities, and other institutions to deliver, store, and manage online course content and related student information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented: Brent O. Hatch, Esq. Adam M. Pace, Esq. HATCH LAW GROUP, PC 22 East 100 South, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 869-1919 E-mail: hatch@hatchpc.com pace@hatchpc.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Michael H. Sampson, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-924 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com mike@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com ISLAND BAGEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amaya Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ELBIN ALECSANDER PADILLA AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISLAND BAGEL BAR LAWRENCE LLC; and YAFIM MULKANDOV, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02699 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Amaya was employed by the Defendants as a customer service worker. Island Bagel Bar Lawrence LLC owns and operates restaurants. The Company offers fresh bagels, sandwiches, coffee, espresso, and other food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 J-M MANUFACTURING: Faces Leafdale Suit Over Toxic Asbestos Fibers ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH LEAFDALE, individually and as personal representative for the Estate of WILLIAM E. LEAFDALE, deceased, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Individually and as successor in interest to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; STERLING WANDER LLLP, f/k/a HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., as successor in interest to BENDIX, Case No. N26C-05-191 ASB (Del. Super. New Castle Cty., May 18, 2026) contends that William E. Leafdale was wrongfully exposed to and inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers, an inherently dangerous toxic substance emanating from the use of the products was completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the health of persons inhaling, ingesting, or otherwise absorbing them. The Defendants were at all times pertinent, directly or indirectly engaged in the specification, mining, manufacturing, distribution, sales, licensing, leasing, installation, removal, or use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, says the suit. The Defendants are engaged in the development, manufacture, distribution, sales, licensing or leasing of equipment, procedures, or technology necessary to mine, manufacture, sell, distribute, install, remove, and use asbestos and asbestos-containing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq. Andrew C. Dalton, Esq. Michael C. Dalton, Esq. Connor C. Dalton, Esq. Jessica L. Needles, Esq. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Cool Spring Meeting House 1106 West Tenth Street Wilmington, DE 19806 - and - WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 - and - Adam Balick, Esq. Michael Collins Smith, Esq. Ross Carey, Esq. BALICK & BALICK, LLC 600 North King Street, Ste. 10 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-4265 E-mail: msmith@balick.com JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class, Derivative Actions ---------------------------------------------------- Jasper Therapeutics, 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 over certain material misstatements or omissions related to the ongoing clinical trials of "briquilimab" in violation of federal securities laws. On September 19, 2025, a shareholder class action complaint captioned "Grant v. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc., et al." (Case No. 25-cv-08010) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its current and former officers. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On December 3, 2025, a stipulated order was entered appointing co-lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of co-lead counsel. On December 16, 2025, a stipulated order was entered setting a schedule for the filing and responses to an amended complaint. An amended complaint captioned "Allard, et al. v. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc., et al." (Case No. 25-cv-08010) was filed. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on April 20, 2026. Additionally, on November 5, 2025, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned "Bardauskas v. Martell, et al." (Case No. 25-cv-09561) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 22, 2025, another shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the same court and captioned "Walsh v. Martell, et al." (Case No. 25-cv-10899). The derivative complaints name as defendants certain of the company's current and former officers and directors, and allege claims related to the allegations raised in the shareholder class action complaint. On January 21, 2026, a stipulated order was entered, among other things, consolidating and staying the derivative actions. Jasper Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing novel therapies targeting hematologic malignancies and stem cell transplant conditioning. The company is headquartered in the United States and conducts clinical development of its lead product candidate, briquilimab. JUICE PRESS: Uses Illegal Tracking Tools, Loshkareva Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ EKATERINA LOSHKAREVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. THE JUICE PRESS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03857 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its installation and use of the NextRoll code on its website. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has installed and deployed data broker software on its website https://juicepress.com/ to secretly collect data about visitors to the Website, their devices, locations and views of webpages to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track their internet browsing on an ongoing basis. The data broker software compiles the collected data and correlates it with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of Website visitors. Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent or authorization violates the California Penal Code, California's Trap and Trace Law and duties Defendant owed to Plaintiff and other visitors to the Website similarly situated under applicable common law, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff's communications with the Website were converted into a linkable identity record without Plaintiff's consent; Plaintiff lost control over how the extracted visitor-identifying signals are used and disseminated; and Plaintiff faces an ongoing risk that this unlawfully created identity linkage will be repurposed, shared, or sold within the data-broker ecosystem for uses far removed from Plaintiff's purpose in visiting the Website. Furthermore, it diminished the value to Plaintiff (and other similarly situated visitors) of data associated with them, their device and their browser that can be used to identify and track them, says the suit. Plaintiffs and Class members, therefore, seek statutory damages of $5,000 for the Defendant's violations, as well as injunctive relief enjoining the conduct. Plaintiff Ekaterina Loshkareva is a citizen of California and maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. Defendant sells juices, smoothies and plant-based food products to the general public through its website and at retail locations. DOE Defendants 1 through 10 are the unknown entities that Defendant directed and controlled to participate in implementing or maintaining Defendant's deployment of data broker software on the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 90 Broad St., Suite 703 New York, New York 10004 New York office: (212) 702-8670 Main Office (L.A.): (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com rtauler@taulersmith.com KENDO HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kendo Holdings Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05358 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired users to complete a transaction on the website. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Kendo Holdings Inc. owns and operates the website, Olehenriksen.com, which offers beauty and personal care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com KKR & CO: Hinds Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------ AARON HINDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KKR & CO INC. and INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03816 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state and common laws in connection with Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information within their "Canvas" education software product. According to the complaint, the PII of over 275 million students and teachers were compromised exposed to the world via the "dark web" by the notorious and infamous prolific hacking group called ShinyHunters. To make matters worse, the victims of the data breach still have not been directly informed by KKR or Instructure about the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims arising from negligence, negligence per se, and violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. KKR is a global investment firm with its headquarters located in New York, NY. It is the parent company of Instructure Inc., which owns Canvas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 444 Forest Hills, NY, 1137 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com KRISTI NOEM: Class Certification Bid Held in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Student DOE #1 et al., v. KRISTI NOEM et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02998-KSH-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Katharine S. Hayden entered an order granting motion to hold in abeyance Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jWrcxo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4500 E-mail: llustberg@fbtgibbons.com LA FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $725,000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that LA Financial Federal Credit Union, which does business as LA Financial, has agreed to a $725,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the institution failed to protect the sensitive information of current and former customers from a June 2024 data breach. The $725,000 LA Financial class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 7, 2026. The settlement covers all living United States residents whose private information was compromised in the June 2024 data breach, including those who received notice of the incident. Court documents state that approximately 34,866 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the LA Financial data breach settlement can be found at LAFinancialSettlement.com. LA Financial settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses fairly traceable to the data breach. This benefit covers phone charges, credit reports, credit monitoring services, expenses related to dealing with identity theft or fraud, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or correspondence, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead file a claim form to receive an approximately $50 cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of this cash payout may increase or decrease, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Class members who are California residents at any time between June 10, 2024 and August 5, 2026 can also claim a roughly $100 cash payment in addition to a documented-loss or alternative cash payout. The final value of this payment will also depend on the total number of valid claims filed. Finally, in addition to monetary benefits, all class members can file a claim to receive two years of one-bureau credit monitoring services. To file an LA Financial settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All LA Financial settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 5, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the LA Financial data breach settlement following a hearing on July 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The LA Financial Credit Union class action lawsuit alleged that the Los Angeles-based financial service provider failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information of current and former customers, which allegedly led to a data breach on or around June 10, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been exposed during the breach included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license and passport numbers, state identification numbers, financial account information, card numbers, routing numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, health insurance information and biometric data. [GN] LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Licea Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Luis Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAIRD SUPERFOOD, INC., a Nevada corporation, d/b/a WWW.LAIRDSUPERFOOD.COM, Case No. 26CU008462C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02912-JLS-VET. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was unlawfully charged through Laird's website, www.lairdsuperfood.com, in connection with an automatic renewal or continuous service program. Based on this conduct, Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and a putative class under: the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"); California's false advertising law, California Business & Professions Code (the "FAL"); and California's unfair competition law, California Business & Professions Code (the "UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carol R. Brophy, Esq. STEPTOE LLP One Market Plaza Steuart Tower, Suite 1070 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-365-6700 Facsimile: 415-365-6699 Email: cbrophy@steptoe.com - and - Anthony G. Hopp, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Ste. 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-577-1300 Facsimile: 312-577-1370 Email: ahopp@steptoe.com LEGAL AID: Kubicki Sues Over Disability Accommodation Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- MARISSA KUBICKI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY, CONNIE PARK, in her individual capacity, LAURA WALSH, in her individual capacity, REBEKAH ALMANZAR, in her individual capacity, JACKIE QUIGLEY, in her individual capacity, and YONZEL BURT, in her individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03882-VSB (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2026) is a class action seeking, on behalf of Plaintiff and several classes, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to cease its unlawful accommodation practices and to implement lawful accommodation policies, including prompt interim measures while requests are pending, as well as attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs, pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a forensic social worker serving Defendant's clients and supporting Defendant's attorneys in court. This case concerns Defendant's response after Plaintiff developed a serious medical condition and began medical treatment that made unnecessary prolonged exposure to crowded courthouse environments medically risky. The Plaintiff did not seek to avoid client-facing work, attorney support, hearings, or court-related duties. She sought to limit unnecessary courthouse exposure while remaining available to attend court when her physical presence was needed. However, instead of providing interim protection or conduct a good-faith individualized assessment, the Defendant delayed, diverted, and imposed a new, up to full-day, "court presence" requirement that exposed Plaintiff to the very risk her provider sought to reduce. The suit challenges the Defendant Legal Aid Society's: (1) systemic failure to provide reasonable accommodations; (2) systemic delay in the provision of reasonable accommodations including provision of interim measures; (3) systemic failure to engage in a good faith cooperative dialogue; (4) systemic interference, coercion, and intimidation with respect to the employees' exercise of disability rights; (5) systemic medical inquiry violations; (6) systemic screening of disabled employees; and (7) a pattern and/or practice of retaliation. The Legal Aid Society is a New York City nonprofit legal services organization that relies on skilled professionals to carry out its mission of serving indigent clients in criminal court.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, PLLC Gotham Center 28-07 Jackson Ave., 5th Fl. Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (646) 560-3208 Facsimile: (646) 390-4524 E-mail: cd@theduggerlawfirm.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that two policyholders filed a class action lawsuit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Why: Liberty Mutual allegedly failed to safeguard policyholders' sensitive information, which was exposed in a recent ransomware attack. Where: The Liberty Mutual data breach class action lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts federal court. Liberty Mutual Insurance is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to safeguard sensitive information belonging to more than 15,000 policyholders that was exposed in a recent ransomware attack. Plaintiffs Robert Francis and John Goodwin claim Liberty Mutual failed to protect their personally identifiable information and protected health information, which was reportedly exfiltrated by "a notorious criminal ransomware group" known as Everest. "Plaintiffs have since discovered that Everest has added [Liberty Mutual] to its dark web leak site, where their private information, including their highly sensitive medical records, may be posted for any nefarious actor to view, download and use to commit crimes against plaintiffs and class members, including identity theft and fraud," the Liberty Mutual class action lawsuit says. Francis and Goodwin want to represent a nationwide class and Massachusetts subclass of consumers whose private information was compromised in the Liberty Mutual data breach. Liberty Mutual failed to encrypt or redact private information, plaintiffs say Francis and Goodwin argue Liberty Mutual failed to encrypt or redact the sensitive information, which they claim was compromised due to the company's "negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its clients' sensitive data." "The present and continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their respective lifetimes," the Liberty Mutual class action lawsuit says. Francis claims he began experiencing spam, scam and phishing text messages and phone calls soon after the Liberty Mutual data breach, while Goodwin alleges fraudulent charges were made to his checking account. Francis and Goodwin claim Liberty Mutual is guilty of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, statutory, exemplary and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. Last year, Liberty Mutual faced a class action lawsuit alleging it made illegal robocalls to consumers without their consent. The plaintiffs are represented by Casondra Turner of Milberg PLLC and Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC. The Liberty Mutual data breach class action lawsuit is Francis, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-12056, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN] LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Harhay Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael J. Harhay and William F. Schmierer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company; and LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, Case No. 26CV008212 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01757-DC-JDP. The Plaintiffs assert claims arising from Defendants' alleged use of Automated License Plate Recognition ("ALPR") technology on behalf of themselves and a class comprised of "all individuals whose vehicles were captured by automated license plate reader systems deployed, operated, or controlled by Defendants and/or their agents or vendors at any California retail store location, during the period beginning on the date Flock Safety ALPR cameras were first installed at California Lowe's properties and continuing through the present."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.318.2770 Facsimile: 424.731.8301 Email: sheridans@ballardspahr.com - and - Brianna R. Howard, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: 424.204.4400 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Email: howardbr@ballardspahr.com - and - J. Matthew Thornton, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2000 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2110 Phone: 612.371.6207 Email: thorntonj@ballardspahr.com LUFAX HOLDING: Faces Mau Class Suit Over Market Value Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- KAM WAI MAU, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUFAX HOLDING LTD, YONG SUK CHO, and DAVID SIU KAM CHOY, Case No. 1:26-cv-04122-MMG (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Lufax securities between April 7, 2023 and January 26, 2025, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 7, 2023, before the market opened, the Company filed with the SEC its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2022. Attached to the 2022 Annual Report were signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by Defendants Cho and Choy attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. On January 27, 2025, before the market opened, Lufax filed with the SEC a current report on Form 6-K. Attached to the current report as an exhibit was an announcement that stated that Lufax was proposing to remove its auditor. The release revealed that Lufax fired PricewaterhouseCoopers because PwC had significant concerns about Lufax's financial disclosures and, in particular, the 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports. PwC's concerns were such that its audit opinions for the 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports were no longer to be relied upon. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's ADSs, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit says. The Plaintiff purchased Lufax securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Lufax Holding Ltd. operates a technology-empowered personal financial services platform. The Company is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MARYLAND: Bangura Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that: (1) the Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification is granted; (2) the Plaintiffs shall be Rule 23 Class Representatives; (3) Michael K. Amster, Edith K. Thomas, Thomas J. Eiler, and Jeremy P. Monteiro of Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC shall be appointed as Rule 23 Class Counsel; (4) the Defendants shall provide a Rule 23 Class list containing names, last known mailing addresses, last known cell phone numbers, last known personal email addresses, any unique employee ID numbers, and relevant dates of employment for the Putative Class Members within 15 days of the Court's Order; (5) the proposed Notice Form shall be approved; and (6) the proposed Notice Form shall be disseminated via First Class mail to the Putative Class Members, with a 6-day response deadline. 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=Mjht1T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq. Edith K. Thomas, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. Jeremy P. Monteiro, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com ethomas@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com jmonteiro@zagfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tomion Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Alan Tomion, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 6:26-cv-06473 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, 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-04167-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: Seth A. Dymond, Esq. BELLUCK & FOX LLP 546 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 681-1575 Fax: (212) 681-1574 Email: sdymond@belluckfox.com MOSAIC COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over NPK Fertilizers Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------------- STEVE JOHNSON; and LISA MARIE JOHNSON d/b/a STEVE JOHNSON FARM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDING, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00380-FJG (W.D. Miss., May 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in the conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (potash) fertilizers ("NPK Fertilizers") from at least as early as January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease (the "Class Period"). The Defendants' coordinated scheme has caused American farmers, agricultural cooperatives, and other purchasers throughout the fertilizer supply chain to pay artificially inflated prices for the essential crop nutrients upon which modern agriculture depends, says the suit. The Mosaic Company produces and distributes crop nutrients to the agricultural communities. The Company offers feed ingredients, crop nutrient, industrial products, concentrated phosphates, and potash. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Steve N. Six, Esq. Caleb Wagner, Esq. Benjamin J. Stueve, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com six@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com ben.stueve@stuevesiegel.com - and - Don M. Downing, Esq. Jack A. Downing, Esq. Dan R. Ritter, Esq. GRAY RITTER GRAHAM 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5620 Email: ddowning@grgpc.com jdowning@grgpc.com dritter@grgpc.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Anny Marie Martin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com amartin@rgrdlaw.com - and - Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Email: xanb@rgrdlaw.com ashingler@rgrdlaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETHANY MANLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of persons, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, and MORTGAGE CONNECT LP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00159 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Chambers entered an order granting the second joint motion to amend scheduling order, and extending the following deadlines: a) Expert Disclosures (Defendant): from March 20, 2026, to Oct. 5, 2026; b) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: from April 6, 2026, to Oct. 19, 2026; c) Discovery Requests: from April 6, 2026, to Oct. 19, 2026; d) Deposition Discovery: from May 13, 2026, to Nov. 24, 2026; e) Motion for Class Certification: from May 20, 2026, to Nov. 24, 2026; and f) Dispositive Motions: from July 27, 2026, to Feb. 5, 2027. All other provisions of the original Scheduling Order, as previously amended, remain in full force and effect. The Court does not intend to grant further extensions. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. Mr. Cooper is an American home loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7ol9Ns at no extra charge.[CC] NESTLE HEALTH: Faces Pitre Class Suit Over Biotin Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA PITRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NESTLE HEALTH SCIENCE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-04652-SK (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) is a class action complaint against Neste for its knowing, reckless, negligent, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and partially misrepresenting that Nestle's biotin supplements were beneficial and of high quality when, in fact, the overwhelming amount of the biotin in its Biotin Supplements is nutritionally valueless. The Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Class, including requiring full disclosure of the nutritional benefits and biotin absorption on the Products' labels and relevant packaging, and restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class. Biotin supplements are among the most widely sold dietary supplements in the Biotin supplements' popularity has soared among the general public because manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of biotin supplements actively and continually promote biotin supplements as enhancing their users' beauty routine and supporting their hair, skin, and nail health. Nestle distributes, markets, and sells biotin supplements in doses of 1000 mcg, 5000 mcg, 7500 mcg, 8mg, and 10,000 mcg, under various brand names that it owns, including, without limitation, Nature's Bounty, Pure Encapsulations, Solgar, Puritan's Pride, and Sundown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. Catherine Peterson, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 E-mail: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com kfreier@hechtpartners.com cpeterson@hechtpartners.com - and - Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. Andrew D. Yoder, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA, LLP 311 S. Wacker, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kae@wbe-llp.com ay@wbe-llp.com NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. -- The Court grants the Parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, certification of the settlement class, appointment of class counsel, and approval of the Plaintiffs' notice of settlement and claim form. -- Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of: "All current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Manhattan Beer in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program (the "PDP"), at any time from Jan. 23, 2019, through Apr. 9, 2025." -- For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "All current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Manhattan Beer in New York State, through the PDP, at any time from Jan. 23, 2022, through Apr. 9, 2025." -- The Court appoints Plaintiffs Ruiz-Reyes, Faysal, Rosa, and Osorio to represent the Class and finds that Plaintiffs meet all the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rPCzM3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com NEW YORK, NY: MB Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order that: (1) For the purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court grants conditional certification of the MB Settlement Class: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who performed work for Manhattan Beer through the PDP in New York State at any time from Jan. 23, 2019 to April 9, 2025." Excluded from the MB Settlement Class are any Class Members who validly and timely request exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice and this Opinion and Order. (2) For settlement purposes only, the Court grants final certification of the following FLSA collective action (the "MB Collective"): "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Inspectors who performed work for Manhattan Beer through the PDP at any time from Jan. 23, 2022 through April 9, 2025 and who have filed a Consent to Join Form in the Action and/or who submit a Claim Form." (3) For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court appoints the following class representatives or Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of the MB Settlement Class: Charlie Ruiz-Reyes, M. Mostayen Faysal, Julio Rosa, and Sudan Osorio. (4) For settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23(g), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is certified as Class Counsel for the MB Settlement Class (5) The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The parties submitted a proposed order setting forth the settlement procedures and schedule, which we will approve in a separate order to be filed following this Opinion and Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Dkt. No. 780 Considering the procedural and substantive factors in Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e)(2) as well as the Grinnell and Wolinsky factors, the Court grants both preliminary approval of the MB Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, as well as provisional certification of the MB Settlement Class and final certification of the MB Collective. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c9WRRH at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Ward-Lucas Sues Over Insurance Payment Failure ---------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA WARD-LUCAS, on her behalf and behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01884-SAG (D. Md., May 13, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff's homeowners' insurance premium due in March 2025--even though there were adequate funds in Plaintiff's account to cover the required premium. When Plaintiff disputed Defendant's failure to pay the policy through a Qualified Written Request and asked that it pay for the lender-placed insurance policy due to its failure to pay her policy, the Defendant refused to correct its error. It also refused to provide Plaintiff with most of the documents requested by her Qualified Written Request, says the suit. Headquartered in Greenville, SC, Newrez, LLC does business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com NEXTERA ENERGY: M&A Investigates Merger with Dominion Energy ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE) related to merger with Dominion Energy, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, NextEra shareholders will own approximately 74.5% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nextera-energy-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] NSC ABATEMENT: Burbano Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Owed -------------------------------------------------------------- Olga Burbano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NSC ABATEMENT SERVICES INC, PABLO BERHAU, and KEVIN FOX, Case No. 7:26-cv-03856 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026), is brought arising from Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff all wages owed and proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Order (the "Wage Orders"), and discriminatory and retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff based on her gender, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, NY Exec. Law ("NYSHRL"), and the Administrative Code of the City of New York ("NYCHRL"). Approximately once per month, Plaintiff was required to work the same schedule on Saturday, resulting in a workweek of 49.50 compensable hours in those weeks. A few times a year, Plaintiff also worked the same schedule on Sunday. Depending on the project and particularly when working on public schools, Plaintiff would begin work in the afternoon and would work through the evening. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the 15 minutes they directed her to work prior to her shift. the Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff at the required overtime rate of one-and one-half times her regular rate. Defendants instead paid her at her regular rate of pay for most of her work. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to gender-based hostility by male coworkers and supervisors. Male coworkers would make threatening comments to Plaintiff such as "behave yourself otherwise you know what we're going to do to you," referring to assigning Plaintiff excessive heavy physical labor as punishment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2019 (and full-time from 2022) through August 21, 2025 and was the only female worker with a supervisor title. NSC is engaged in the business of asbestos, lead paint, and mold abatement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 571-0700 OCTONUTS LLC: Crumwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCTONUTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03732 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.octonuts.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. Octonuts, LLC specializes in nut oils and almond protein powders, offering products that are non-GMO, Paleo, and Keto-friendly. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal OLIVE & JUNE: Meade Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mariah Meade, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OLIVE & JUNE, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-07593-5 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05483. The Plaintiff alleges at least eight emails between 2022 and 2025 contained "false or misleading" subject lines. The Plaintiff further alleges the class is estimated to "minimally contain thousands of members." Accordingly, the alleged aggregated damages, fees, and costs Plaintiff seeks surpass CAFA's $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Quincy Rush, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206.622.3150 Fax: 206.757.7700 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com quincyrush@dwt.com PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Users' Data Tracking ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that three customers are suing Papa John's International Inc. Why: The plaintiffs claim Papa John's tracks users' data even if they opt out of website cookies. Where: The Papa John's class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Papa John's tracks users' data even if they opt out of website cookies. Plaintiffs Mikhail Gershzon, Bianca Johnston and Daniel Wine filed the class action complaint against Papa John's on April 24 in California federal court, alleging violations of state privacy laws. According to the class action, the pizza chain violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act and misleads consumers by tracking their data even after they opt out of cookies on the company's website. The lawsuit alleges that when users visit Papa John's website, they are presented with a cookie consent banner that gives them the option to reject non-essential cookies. However, even if users choose to reject these cookies, Papa John's still allows third-party companies to place tracking cookies on their devices, the plaintiffs say. Lawsuit: Papa John's shares user data with third parties The class action lawsuit argues that this practice constitutes a breach of consumer trust and a violation of privacy laws. The plaintiffs allege that Papa John's shares user data with third parties, including companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon, without users' consent. The data collected includes browsing history, visit history, website interactions, user input data, demographic information, interests and preferences, shopping behaviors, device information, referring URLs, session information, user identifiers and geolocation data, the plaintiffs say. The plaintiffs claim that Papa John's misleads users by falsely assuring them that they can opt out of website cookies and tracking technologies. They argue that this misrepresentation prevents users from making informed decisions about their privacy and data sharing preferences. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent a class of all California residents who visited Papa John's website and opted out of non-essential cookies. The plaintiffs are demanding damages and an injunction to prevent Papa John's from continuing its alleged privacy violations. The lawsuit comes as Papa John's faces another class action lawsuit alleging it sends spam emails with subject lines that create a false sense of urgency. The plaintiffs are represented by Seth A. Safier, Marie A. McCrary and Todd Kennedy of Gutride Safier LLP. The Papa John's class action lawsuit is Gershzon, et al. v. Papa John's International Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03504-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] PARK DENTAL: Faces Consolidated Data Breach Suit in Minnesota Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Park Dental Partners, 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 facing a putative consolidated class action suit in Minnesota District Court entitled, "In re Park Dental Data Breach Litigation," Case No. 27-CV-24-12335, Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Park Dental Partners, Inc. operates a network of dental clinics and related support services. The company provides general and specialty dental care to patients across its service regions. PARKER-HANNIFIN: Schumaker Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Schumaker, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU011619C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on May 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02943-W-BJW. In Plaintiff's Complaint, he alleges 2 causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Unpaid Overtime); and failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Unpaid Minimum Wages).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tao Y. Leung, Esq. Ronnie Arenas, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: tao.leung@hoganlovells.com ronnie.arenas@hoganlovells.com PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that The Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) has agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive member information. The PSEA class action settlement benefits individuals whose private information was potentially compromised in the data breach that occurred on July 6, 2024, and was announced on March 18, 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Education Association failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have prevented a data breach in July 2024. As a result of this negligence, the plaintiffs say their sensitive personal data was compromised and placed at risk for fraud and identity theft. The Pennsylvania State Education Association is a labor union that represents more than 180,000 educators, school staff and higher education faculty across the state. The PSEA has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay a $2.5 million class action settlement to resolve the PSEA data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the PSEA settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed costs, expenses, losses or charges incurred as a result of identity theft or fraud, credit report costs, communication expenses and more. Class members who do not have documentation of out-of-pocket expenses can receive a smaller payment of $50. These class members are not eligible for reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. All class members are eligible for two years of free credit monitoring through the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 6, 2026. The final approval hearing for the PSEA settlement is scheduled for July 27, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 6, 2026. Who's Eligible The PSEA class action settlement benefits individuals whose private information was potentially compromised in the data breach that occurred on July 6, 2024, and was announced on March 18, 2025. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses or a $50 cash payout. Proof of Purchase Documentation of expenses, such as receipts, bank statements, bills or invoices. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/06/2026 Case Name Hudson, et al. v. Pennsylvania State Education Association, Case No. 2025-CV-02411, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Final Hearing 07/27/2026 Settlement Website PSEADataSettlement.com Claims Administrator PSEA Data Settlement c/o RG/2 Claims Administration P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 PSEADataSettlement@rg2claims.com (800) 465-8066 Class Counsel Gerald D. Wells III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP Defense Counsel Christopher G. Dean MCDONALD HOPKINS [GN] PETROLEX II: Parties Seek Extension of Pre-Trial Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN KELLY CATHRYN KELLY; and KENNETH J. GREW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PETROLEX II, LLC, d/b/a CK SMITH SUPERIOR and JOHN C SANTORO, individually, Case No. 4:23-cv-40175-MRG (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the pre-trial deadlines by six weeks. The Parties have agreed that the following extended pre-trial deadlines will allow the agreed-upon supplemental expert discovery to be completed and class certification be filed in a timely and orderly fashion: Event Deadline Completion of second day of the Defendant's June 11, 2026 Expert's deposition Class certification motions filed: July 2, 2026 Opposition to class certification motions: Aug. 31, 2026 Reply in support of class certification Sept. 30, 2026 Motions: The Parties will use their best efforts to complete the necessary discovery and Class certification on this schedule and without further extensions. The Parties note, however, that the inspections are contingent on absent Class Members' schedules. Petrolex is a company specializing in specialized repair services and fuel delivery, primarily in the HVAC and heating oil sectors. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 14, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C8Nuj1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Regan, Esq. Jeffrey S. Strom, Esq. REGAN STROM, P.C. 185 Devonshire Street, Suite 301 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 449-2967 Facsimile: (857) 401-3023 E-mail: jregan@reganstrom.com jstrom@reganstrom.com The Defendants are represented by: Gavin G. McCarthy, Esq. Melanie Conroy, Esq. Nolan L. Reichl, Esq. Sarah R. Remes, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 488-8100 Facsimile: (617) 824-2020 E-mail: gmccarthy@pierceatwood.com mconroy@pierceatwood.com nreichl@pierceatwood.com sremes@pierceatwood.com - and - Kip J. Adams, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 60 State Street, 23rd Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (857) 313-3950 Facsimile: (857) 313-3951 E-mail: Kip.adams@lewisbrisbois.com - and - George F. Leahy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE F. LEAHY West Boxford, MA 01885-0015 Telephone: (978) 686-5600 Facsimile: (978) 686-5600 E-mail: gleahylaw@yahoo.com PHONAK LLC: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Frost Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Phonak, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02539-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., May 7, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website www.phonak.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of Plaintiff's experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs were injured when they attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota and encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. The Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiffs Clarence and Tammy Frost are legally blind and have been residents of Minnesota. Defendant Phonak, LLC offers hearing devices and solutions for sale including, but not limited to, hearing aids, hearing aid accessories, Roger wireless microphones, hearing aid apps, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PHREESIA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set July 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, PLLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Phreesia, Inc. (NYSE: PHR). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Phreesia common stock between May 8, 2025 and March 30, 2026. Investors are hereby notified that they have until July 13, 2026, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. The Phreesia class action lawsuit alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Phreesia's pharmaceutical marketing commitments within its Network Solutions segment were weakening; (ii) the Company was experiencing reduced visibility into future spending commitments from pharmaceutical manufacturers; (iii) Network Solutions clients were committing lower spending levels for the second half of fiscal year 2027 than the Company had previously anticipated; and (iv) increasing variability in Network Solutions revenue forecasting placed the Company's fiscal year 2027 revenue guidance and long-term growth outlook at risk. About Johnson Fistel, PLLP Johnson Fistel, PLLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, Idaho, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder class actions and derivative lawsuits. Johnson Fistel has been selected as one of the Top 10 Plaintiff Law Firms by ISS Securities Class Action Services. In 2024, Johnson Fistel recovered approximately $90,725,000 for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. This communication may be considered a promotional communication. Johnson Fistel, PLLP and its attorneys are responsible for the content of this communication. Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for this advertisement. Contact: James Baker, Esq. Johnson Fistel, PLLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] PHREESIA INC: Faces Shareholders Class Suit Over Securities Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Phreesia, Inc. ("Phreesia" or the "Company") (NYSE:PHR). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Phreesia and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until July 13, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Phreesia securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On March 30, 2026, Phreesia announced significantly reduced revenue growth projections for fiscal year 2027 guidance. The Company attributed the shortfall relative to its prior guidance to a combination of macroeconomic factors including "worsening visibility" and weaker pharmaceutical marketing commitments within its Network Solutions segment. On this news, Phreesia's stock price fell $3.03 per share, or 26.56%, to close at $8.38 per share on March 31, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] PHREESIA INC: Theodoulou Alleges Federal Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL THEODOULOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHREESIA, INC., CHAIM INDIG, and BALAJI GANDHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00556-UNA (D. Del., May 13, 2026) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Phreesia's profitability for the fiscal year 2027. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Phreesia's ability to capitalize on its growth potential through continued expansion of its Network Solutions segment, as well as contributions from its AccessOne acquisition. However, 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 Phreesia's slowing demand and reduced visibility in key revenue streams, notably, the weakened pharmaceutical marketing commitments in its Network Solutions segment. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Phreesia's securities at artificially inflated prices. After the market closed on March 30, 2026, Phreesia announced significantly reduced revenue growth projections for fiscal year 2027 guidance. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Phreesia's revelation. The price of Phreesia's common stock declined from a closing market price of $11.41 per share on March 30, 2025, to $8.38 per share on March 31, 2026, a decline of about 27%, the suit says. Phreesia, Inc. provides an integrated SaaS-based software and payment platform for the healthcare industry in the United States and Canada. The company’s common stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "PHR." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Phaneuf Suit Over Unscented Antiperspirant ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA PHANEUF, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-12251-WGY (D. Mass., May 18, 2026) is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Secret Invisible Solid Antiperspirant and Deodorant. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently advertises, markets, and sells the Products as antiperspirant/deodorant that is "unscented" (the Unscented Representation). The Unscented Representation promises that the Products do not contain fragrance ingredients: The Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing that the Products do not contain fragrance ingredients. It does this because consumers desire products without fragrance ingredients can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions, the suit says. As a result, consumers are seeking out products without fragrance ingredients. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Products do contain fragrance and are therefore not "unscented." The Plaintiff and Class members purchased the Product, which are designed, marketed, manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells the Products in thousands of stores throughout the United States, including the state of Massachusetts. The Defendant specializes in developing, marketing, and selling personal care products to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor No. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street Suite 650 #1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Website Conceals Tracking Tools, Dunn Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMILLAH DUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., a Delaware company, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04291 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawfully disclosing consumers' sensitive financial information, including their securities holdings and stock portfolios, to unauthorized third parties without consumers' consent. The complaint relates that the consumers may search, view, and trade securities either on the Robinhood mobile app or the Robinhood website. Unbeknownst to consumers, Robinhood embedded invisible trackers on its website from Google that transmit sensitive financial information to advertisers without the consumers' knowledge or consent. The sensitive financial data that Robinhood shared with Google includes a consumer's full account number, the names of securities held in the consumer's portfolio, the current price of the security, the consumer's searches for securities, and additional web activity. Confidentiality is paramount in the financial industry, but Robinhood nonetheless disregarded well-known legal and ethical duties to protect and safeguard consumers' financial information, the complaint asserts. In the process, Robinhood breached consumers' trust. Neither Plaintiff nor any other Class Member signed a written authorization permitting Robinhood to share sensitive financial information with Google, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of action for (1) violation of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act ("ECPA"); (2) Violation of the California Information Privacy Act ("CIPA"); (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of Implied Contract; (5) Violation of the CCPA; (6) Intrusion Upon Seclusion; and (7) Breach of Confidence. Plaintiff Jamillah Dunn is a citizen of the State of California. Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial institution that provides an electronic trading platform that facilitates trading of stocks, exchange-traded funds, options, futures contracts, and other securities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866-252-0878 E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Kara L. Kapp, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015 Telephone: 516-620-4219 E-mail: kkapp@milberg.com - and - Albert Plawinski, Esq. PLAWINSKI, PLLC 2101 Pearl St. Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 720-7095 E-mail: albert@plawinski.law SCHELL & KAMPETER: Faces Class Suit Over Dog Foods' Deceptive Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food is deceptively marketed as healthy and safe, given that there exists no medical or scientific justification for feeding a dog a grain-free diet high in legume or pulse ingredients. The 38-page complaint contends that defendant Schell & Kampeter, Inc. has misled consumers into believing its Taste of the Wild dog food is healthier and more natural for dogs even in the face of evidence that dogs who consistently consume the grain-free food have an increased risk of developing dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), a fatal heart disease. The case says that while the scientific and academic communities have known of the DCM risk for dogs on grain-free diets for years, Taste of the Wild and other manufacturers have "taken numerous steps to minimize public awareness" of the problem, including by "refusing to disclose" the research and/or health risks online or on product packaging. "Nowhere on the dog food packaging or website does Defendant inform consumers of its product's association with serious cardiac health risks," the class action lawsuit states. "When one searches 'DCM,' 'dilated cardiomyopathy,' 'cardiac risk,' or 'heart damage,' in the search bar on Defendant's Taste of the Wild website, the search locates nothing responsive." According to the complaint, DCM is a condition characterized by an enlarged, weakened left ventricle that ultimately reduces the heart's ability to pump blood effectively. Although certain larger breeds may be genetically predisposed to the disease, DCM can also develop due to dietary and lifestyle factors, the suit says. The lawsuit claims that the rise in popularity of grain-free pet foods in recent decades has mirrored human dietary trends, such as low-carb diets, and has allowed pet food companies to market grain-free products as premium, healthier alternatives. Taste of the Wild launched its grain-free dog food line in 2007 on this basis, allegedly without conducting a meaningful feeding study to assess the safety of the food. To this day, the class action lawsuit claims, Schell & Kampeter has not publicly disclosed any feeding study that substantiates its health and safety claims for the Taste of the Wild food at issue. "Because there is no medical or scientific reason a dog should be fed a grain-free diet, pet owners are needlessly exposing their dogs to cardiac health risks by feeding them Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food, while also paying a premium for this dangerous dog food," the filing states. Around 2009, veterinary researchers began to investigate links between diet-associated DCM and grain-free diets after observing the condition in dog breeds typically not predisposed to it, the filing relays. The lawsuit says that researchers found a correlation between DCM and dog foods high in plant-based proteins and legumes, including peas, lentils, chickpeas and other alternative ingredients commonly used as a substitute for grains. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to investigate the development of non-hereditary DCM in dogs with diets high in legumes and plant-based proteins, the case continues. Per the suit, Taste of the Wild ranked in the top three among dog foods most frequently reported with DCM diagnoses, while other private-label dog foods manufactured by Schell & Kampeter also appeared prominently. The complaint also alleges that the company received at least 110 reports between 2018 and 2022 involving canine DCM and other heart-disease-related deaths in dogs fed its grain-free products. When a dog is diagnosed with DCM, the suit contends, it is an "established veterinary medical practice" to advise owners to stop feeding their pet a grain-free diet. The case claims that the defendant is aware of studies that showed an improvement in canine heart function, including a full reversal of DCM, after an owner changes their dog's diet from grain-free to a more traditional diet. "In misrepresenting its product and failing to inform consumers of the implications of consuming Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food, Defendant abuses the public's trust," the lawsuit charges. The Taste of the Wild class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who purchased Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food in California in the last three years, including the following grain-free recipes: -- Appalachian Valley Small Breed Canine Recipe, High Prairie Canine Recipe, High Prairie Canine Recipe with Bison in Gravy, High Prairie Puppy Recipe, Pacific Stream Canine Recipe, Pacific Stream Canine Recipe with Salmon in Gravy, Pacific Stream Puppy Recipe, Pine Forest Canine Recipe, Sierra Mountain Canine Recipe, Sierra Mountain Canine Recipe with Lamb in Gravy, Southwest Canyon Canine Recipe, Southwest Canyon Canine Recipe with Beef in Gravy, Wetlands Canine Recipe, Wetlands Canine Recipe with Fowl in Gravy, Prey Angus Beef Limited Ingredient Recipe for Dogs, Prey Trout Limited Ingredient Recipe for Dogs and Prey Turkey Limited Ingredient Recipe for Dogs. [GN] SCHULER SHOES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SCHULER SHOES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:26-cv-04150 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.schulershoes.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on April 28, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Women's New Balance 574 Lifestyle Sneakers 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 Women's New Balance 574 Lifestyle Sneakers, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: shoes, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. 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 Schuler Shoes online retail store, as well as the Schuler Shoes 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 SHEIN US: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Advertising of Fictitious Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHEIN US SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-04937 (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2026), is brought targeting the Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice of advertising fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on its merchandise, in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code (the "UCL"), False Advertising Law, Business & Professions Code (the "FAL"), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"). Through a practice commonly known as "false reference pricing," Shein misrepresents the existence, nature, and amount of price discounts on merchandise sold on Shein's online store by purporting to offer steep discounts off of fabricated market and/or former reference prices. The end result is a significant price disparity that creates the illusory impression of considerable savings, and ultimately induces consumers into making a purchase they would not have made absent the appearance of the fictitious discount. Shein utilizes a false and misleading reference price in the marketing and selling of Shein branded and/or trademarked merchandise sold on its website. Shein advertises its merchandise for sale by listing a fictitious "reference price" that is crossed out in favor of a prominent "sale" price, with a corresponding "%" off indication next to the two prices. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and misleading perception Shein has created in the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme, says the complaint. The Plaintiff made numerous purchases on Defendant's website in reliance on the "sale" and "reference" pricing Defendant advertised for the merchandise she purchased,. The Defendant operates and maintains an online store offering various lines of clothing, handbags, shoes, jewelry, accessories, and more. Through this website, Defendant advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells clothing and fashion accessories in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com SHOPKICK INC: Strickler Sues Over WARN Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------- NATALIE STRICKLER, JENNIFER KOESTER, and JORDAN MAUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. SHOPKICK, INC.; TRAX RETAIL, INC.; BET INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. dba SURVEY.COM; and WORLDAPP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-12173 (D. Mass., May 13, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and Massachusetts Mini-WARN Act. On March 26, 2026, Shopkick, Inc. notified all employees via a company-wide town hall meeting that their employment would be terminated. However, no written notice was provided to employees prior to said date. In addition, the Defendants offered no severance or payment in lieu of notice, says the suit. Based in Boston, MA, Shopkick, Inc. operated a shopping rewards app, which abruptly ceased operations in March 2026. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Mason, Esq. Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq. BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C. 24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 Telephone: (617) 577-8800 E-mail: mmason@bennettandbelfort.com eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Tariff-Related Price Hikes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jackson Chen, writing for engadget, reports that gamers have filed a class action lawsuit against Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, claiming the company received a "substantial windfall" as a result of price hikes following the Trump administration's tariff policy. The lawsuit was filed in California earlier May 2026 and is seeking refunds for anyone who bought a PlayStation console during the tariff period that led to elevated price tags. To understand this lawsuit, we have to go back to when President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in 2025. Around this time, Sony raised the prices of its PS5 in August 2025, citing a "challenging economic environment." Months later, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Trump didn't have the power to impose tariffs in this way, meaning the federal government had to refund affected companies. While certain companies are reporting that they're already starting to get refunds, the class action lawsuit claimed that Sony decided to pass the increased import costs onto customers, while also being entitled to refunds, resulting in a "double recovery windfall." It's not the first time gamers sought legal action as a result of Trump's tariff policy since a similar class action lawsuit was filed against Nintendo in April. However, Nintendo has also taken legal action against the US government for financial harm thanks to tariffs. On an even larger scale, Amazon is facing a class action lawsuit for the very same reasons as Sony. [GN] STADIUM CASINO: Leeb Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Gregory Leeb, 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. 260400646 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-03138-JMY. 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 SYNGENTA CROP: Hunter Sues Over Hazardous Paraquat Products ----------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT HUNTER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. N26C-05-089 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., May 8, 2026) is a class action asserting that Defendant's Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with their use. As a result of Plaintiff's many years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to Defendant's Paraquat products, the Plaintiff contracted Parkinson's disease. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this case to recover from Defendant, under the following theories of liability: compensation for injuries and damages caused by the exposure of Plaintiff to Paraquat from Defendant's Paraquat products, plus costs of suit; strict product liability--design defect; strict product liability--failure to warn; negligence; breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability; and fraudulent misrepresentation. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC manufactures crop protection chemical products and provides agricultural services, including farm management, seeds, and research and development services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 E-mail: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Teleophone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Higher Insurance Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------ KTBS reports that a class-action lawsuit against EV giant Tesla, challenging its car insurance product, can move forward, an Alameda County Superior Court judge has ruled. Illinois resident Ricky Stephens filed the lawsuit in April on behalf of Tesla owners who also have Tesla insurance in states where Tesla sells coverage. The suit charges that false or incorrect collision warnings from the vehicles' sensors created inaccurate safety scores that pushed up insurance premiums. Tesla insurance Tesla launched its telematics-based insurance program in 2019 and currently sells coverage to Tesla owners in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Tesla's insurance product relies on real-time driving behavior data, gathered by technology already in place in all Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y vehicles. Tesla says premiums are based on the vehicle, location, miles driven, selected coverages, and the vehicle's monthly safety score, which assesses driving behavior based on several metrics. Lawsuit allegations The lawsuit charges that Tesla overcharged drivers by factoring false crash warnings into the safety score that determines premiums. Reuters reported that the complaint states many Tesla drivers have said they experienced forward-collision warnings when no danger was apparent. The false warnings lower safety scores and lead to higher insurance premiums, the lawsuit stated. Because the safety score can change from month to month, Tesla insurance premiums can also change on a monthly basis. The lawsuit seeks restitution, profit information, and an injunction against false advertising, Reuters reported. What's next Judge Brad Seligman rejected a motion by Tesla Insurance to dismiss the lawsuit, paving the way for the class action to move forward in the California court system. An initial hearing is scheduled for January. [GN] TRIANGLE FAMILY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Triangle Family Dentistry data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Triangle Family Dentistry data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Triangle Family Dentistry Security Incident: What Happened? Triangle Family Dentistry, operating 12 locations in North Carolina, has reported a data breach that may have affected sensitive personal information. According to a sample notification letter, a vendor used by Triangle Family Dentistry first became aware of a phishing incident resulting in unauthorized access to emails and files in a vendor's email account on October 24, 2025. Triangle Family Dentistry, whose own systems were not affected in the breach, was notified of the incident on or around March 19, 2026. The sample notification letter specifies that names and addresses may have been exposed in the Triangle Family Dentistry data breach. As reported to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulations on May 15, 2026, Social Security numbers were also among the potentially compromised information. What You Can Do After the Triangle Family Dentistry Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Triangle Family Dentistry data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Triangle Family Dentistry to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] UDR INC: Removes Cupit Class Action Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of KATHIE CUPIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UDR, INC., filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 26STCV06690) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 6, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04895. The case is assigned to George H Wu and referred to Magistrate Karen L Stevenson. UDR, Inc. is a self-administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns, operates, and develops apartment communities located nationwide. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey M. Singletary, Esq. Colin R. Higgins, Esq. Justin F. Mello, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 Telephone: (714) 427-7000 Facsimile: (714) 427-7799 Email: jsingletary@swlaw.com chiggins@swlaw.com jmello@swlaw.com UNITED PARCEL: Families of Crash Victims Attend NTSB Hearing in DC ------------------------------------------------------------------ cliffordlaw.com reports that the families of several victims who were injured or killed in the tragic crash of a UPS cargo jet shortly after takeoff on November 4, 2025, from Louisville, Kentucky, will be attending the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearings May 19 and May 20, 2026, in Washington, D.C. The NTSB is expected to call a number of witnesses, including representatives from Boeing, who manufactured the MD-11F cargo jet that crashed into a recycling area near the airport killing 15 people and injuring 23 more on the ground. Clifford Law Offices, an internationally recognized aviation firm based in Chicago, represents nine of the victims' families who lost loved ones in the crash, as well as several other people who were severely injured in the inferno when the Boeing jet loaded with fuel crashed heading to Hawaii. "These families are devastated and certainly deserve answers," said Bradley M. Cosgrove, partner at Clifford Law Offices who filed the first wrongful death lawsuits in Kentucky regarding this preventable crash. Cosgrove, who heads up the team of lawyers, pilots and technical experts at the firm, also will be in attendance at the hearings. "Clifford Law Offices is conducting its own investigation with its experts to get to the bottom of what happened to ensure that the truth is uncovered." United Parcel Service (UPS) Flight 2976 crashed November 4, 2026 at about 5:15 pm EST shortly after it took off from Muhammad Ali International Airport in Louisville. The hearing will begin with factual reports, photographs and other investigative materials. The agenda released by the NTSB includes executives testifying from Boeing, UPS and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The hearings, part of the NTSB's ongoing investigation, are expected to take place starting at 8 a.m. EST at the NTSB boardroom, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW in the nation's capital. For further information, contact Clifford Law Offices Communications Partner Pamela Sakowicz Menaker, Esq. Cell: (847) 721-0909 E-mail: Pammenaker@cliffordlaw.com Wevsite: www.cliffordlaw.com [GN] UNITED STATES: Gribbon et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA GRIBBON, CHERICE PRATER, HELGA HERTLEIN, DONALD CUSTER, LYNNE BOISROND, DENNIS TITKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01575 (D.D.C., May 8, 2026) seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendants' unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information contained in Defendants' records to Elon Musk and other members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The federal laws protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure and misuse, including by prohibiting disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it. In his first week as Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent violated these restrictions. Elon Musk and/or other DOGE members had sought access to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's records for some time, only to be rebuffed by the employee then in charge of the Bureau. Within a week of being sworn in as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Bessent placed that civil servant on leave and granted DOGE-affiliated individuals full access to the Bureau's data and the computer systems that house them. He did so without making any public announcement, providing any legal justification or explanation for his decision, or undertaking the process required by law for altering the agency's disclosure policies, alleges the suit. The United States Office of Personnel Management is a government agency that manages the civil service of the federal government and coordinates recruiting of new government employees. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Salena J. Chowdhury, 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 schowdhury@masonllp.com - and - Cyrus Mehri, Esq. Richard Condit, Esq. Dee Um, Esq. MERHI & SKALET, PLLC 2000 K Street, NW, Suite 325 Washington, D.C. 20006 E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com rcondit@findjustice.com dum@findjustice.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Cars Have Defective Water Pumps, Larr Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG LARR and KAELIN CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AG, a German Corporation, and AUDI AG, a German Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-05678 (D.N.J., May 18, 2026) is a consumer class action arises from a latent defect found in Defendants' Class vehicles. The action arises from Defendants' failure, despite their longstanding knowledge since at least 2018, to disclose to Plaintiffs and other consumers that the Class Vehicles contain a defectively designed and/or manufactured water pump that causes it to prematurely fail. When the Defect manifests, it leaks coolant internally and can cause catastrophic damage to the engine. Unlike ordinary external coolant leaks that are visible to drivers and technicians, the Defect permits coolant to migrate internally through the vacuum system, often without immediately observable external leakage, thereby concealing the severity of the condition until substantial damage has already occurred. Not only did Defendants actively conceal the fact that the Class Vehicles were prone to the Defect, which can cause extensive damage to the engine (and require costly repairs to fix), but they also did not reveal that the existence of this Defect would diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the Class Vehicles, says the suit. Accordingly, many owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles have communicated with Defendants and their agents to request that they remedy and/or address the Defect at Defendants' expense. Plaintiff Larr purchased a certified pre-owned 2019 Audi A6 on or about August 8, 2021, from Audi South Coast, an authorized Audi dealership located in Santa Ana, California. The Defendant markets, distributes, warranties, and sells Audi-branded automobiles and parts for those automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, in multiple locations across the United States, including California and New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com WALT DISNEY: Faces Suit Over Use of Facial Recognition at Parks --------------------------------------------------------------- Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that Disney has been sued for deploying facial recognition technology at park entrances to verify tickets. A class action accuses the entertainment giant of violating privacy, competition and consumer protection laws by implementing the technology at Disneyland, where photographs of guests' faces are taken and compared with images when they first used the ticket or annual pass. The company "does not adequately disclose the use of their biometric collection, so consumers -- which almost always include children -- have no idea that Disney is collecting this highly sensitive data," reads the complaint, filed in California federal court on Friday, May 15. The lawsuit challenges a trend spreading across major sports and entertainment venues of using facial recognition to prevent fraud, heighten safety and facilitate purchases. Sports stadiums lean on it to streamline entry; theme parks utilize it to manage crowd flow; and security for some musicians rely on it to identify stalkers. But mass adoption of the technology has sparked some concern over the specter of a privatized surveillance state and the commercialization of sensitive personal information. Madison Square Garden uses it to ban entry for the "enemies" of its owner, James Dolan. There have also been instances of companies turning over biometric data to law enforcement. Disney implemented in April facial recognition at the entrance of Disneyland and sister park California Adventure. Most visitors opt into having their faces scanned, unaware of the technology. Company officials have said that it helps make entering and reentering the park easier and prevents fraud. The lawsuit alleges that Disney doesn't properly disclose to guests that it collects the data. There are signs of a slash through a silhouette at four entrances that allow visitors to avoid the technology, but the lawsuit says that it doesn't constitute meaningful notice. "Guests should be able to expressly opt in to this type of sensitive facial recognition technology with written consent -- the onus of privacy rights should not be on the victim," writes Blake Yagman, a lawyer for the proposed class of visitors, in the complaint. "Given how sensitive facial recognition data is, explicit written consent should be required to protect the privacy guests at Disney Theme Parks." In California, businesses can use facial recognition but must comply with a growing set of rules. They include disclosure and allowing consumers to limit the utilization and sharing of their data. Other states, like Illinois, Washington and New Jersey, have stricter laws that require consent and notice. Disney, which didn't respond to a request for comment, disposes of the data gained from its facial recognition technology within 30 days unless its necessary for legal or fraud prevention purposes, according to its privacy policy. The lawsuit contends the assertion "simply cannot be true given the biometric information is compared to when guests first bought tickets or annual passes and associated their pictures with those tickets or passes." Outside of Disney, the company collects biometric data at other theme parks when a visitor uses a "Magic Band" and as part of its "PhotoPass" program. The lawsuit says the information is highly valuable for the creation of consumer profiles that amass details on consumers across various arms of its business. The proposed class action seeks to represent park visitors who have been subject to facial recognition. It seeks at least $5 million. The filing of the lawsuit comes after Disney last year paid a $10 million to settle a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission over the collection of children's data on YouTube videos. [GN] WEDRIVEU INC: Fails to Provide Advance Layoff Notice, Lamont Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA LAMONT, LELA BURNETT and MARY PARKER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WEDRIVEU, INC., a/k/a DIAMOND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-04715 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2026), the Plaintiffs contend that they were terminated along with an estimated 715 other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable result of mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant beginning on or about May 12, 2026 and within 30 days of that date. The Defendant allegedly failed to give Plaintiffs and those similarly situated employees 60 days' advance notice of their terminations, as required the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiffs seek to enforce the WARN Act's statutory remedy of 60 days' back pay and benefits for themselves and those similarly situated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 2104, for the Defendant's failure to provide WARN notice prior to their terminations. Plaintiff Andrea LaMont was employed by Defendant as an Assistant Safety and Training Manager from October 2025 until about May 12, 2026. Plaintiff LaMont was hired to work out of Defendant's Facility located at 6851 Industrial Rd, Springfield, Virginia. The Defendant operates a business that provides transportation services throughout the United States under the name "Diamond Transportation Services, Inc."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gail C. Lin, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 2945 Townsgate Road, Ste. 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com - and - Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. Jack A. Raisner, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com jar@raisnerroupinian.com WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Shaul-Bolek Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------------------ MANDY SHAUL-BOLEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02039 (D. Colo., May 12, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members. Based on that investigation, the Defendant determined that an unauthorized third party accessed and/or acquired certain data contained within Defendant's network between approximately September 17, 2025, and September 25, 2025. The Defendant's subsequent analysis of the affected data did not conclude until on or about March 3, 2026--more than five months after Defendant first learned of the unauthorized access. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Western Orthopaedics, P.C. is an orthopedic surgery practice based in Englewood, CO. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 904-1650 E-mail: service@eksm.com sean@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 YOKOHAMA TIRE: Stevens and Murphy Allege LRMA and ERISA Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL G. STEVENS and DAVIS MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC, Plaintiffs v. YOKOHAMA TIRE MANUFACTURING VIRGINIA, LLC, and YOKOHAMA TIRE MANUFACTURING VIRGINIA, LLC GROUP INSURANCE AND HOSPITALIZATION PLAN SALEM, VIRGINIA, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-00393-EKD-CKM (W.D. Va., May 12, 2026), asserts claims against Yokohama and the Plan under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In connection with the closure of the Salem plant, and pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, the collectively bargained agreements that were in effect at the time of the closure, including the 2022 P&I Agreement, have now terminated. As a result, Yokohama has announced that it will stop providing retiree healthcare, partial Medicare Part B reimbursement, and life insurance benefits beyond December 31, 2026 benefits to the proposed class after December 31, 2026. However, the Plaintiffs maintain that P&I Agreements conferred upon Class members a lifetime right to continued healthcare benefits, partial Medicare Part B premium reimbursement through the Special Medicare Benefit, and life insurance that survived the durational term of the P&I Agreements themselves. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and Rule 23 class-wide relief to enforce Defendants' contractual obligations, as reflected in the governing collective bargaining and plan documents, to provide lifetime healthcare, a partial Medicare Part B reimbursement, and life insurance benefits to hundreds of retirees and their eligible spouses, surviving spouses, and dependents from the company's now closed tire manufacturing plant in Salem, Virginia, says the suit. Yokohama Tire Manufacturing Virginia, a subsidiary of Yokohama Corporation of North America, owned and operated the Salem plant for many years until the plant's recent closure on or around March 18, 2026. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany Haddox, Esq. HADDOX LAW 1203 Texas Street Salem, VA 24153 Telephone: (540) 765-4284 Facsimile: (540) 380-0065 E-mail: brittany@haddox.law - and - John G. Adam, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN G. ADAM, PLLC 3950 W. 11 Mile Rd. Berkley, MI 48072 Telephone: (248) 227-989 E-mail: jgabrieladam@gmail.com - and - Monica Mroz, Esq. MONICA MROZ LAW PO Box 3189 Roanoke, VA 24015 Telephone: (540) 810-4745 E-mail: monica@mroz.legal - and - Joel R. Hurt, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: jhurt@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com - and - David R. Jury, Esq. Cassandra Maas, Esq. United Steelworkers 60 Boulevard of the Allies, Room 807 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 562-2549 Facsimile: (412) 562-2574 E-mail: djury@usw.org cmaas@usw.org ZURI FURNITURE: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Zuri Furniture LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05501 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.zurifurniture.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Walker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reading software users. As a result, the Defendant's website contains significant access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in The Colony, TX, Zuri Furniture LLC owns and operates the website which sells furniture items, such as sectionals, sofas, dining tables, beds, and outdoor collections. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ********* 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 ***