260527.mbx

260527.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 27, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 105 Headlines ADMEDIARY LLC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AKZO NOBEL COATINGS: Warner Files Suit in Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Penning Suit Removed to N.D. California ALCLEAR LLC: Scott Suit Removed to C.D. California ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Systane-Brand Eye Drops ALN MEDICAL: Settlement Deal in Reed Gets Final Nod AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs AMAZON.COM INC: Rose Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to W.D. Wash. AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Mares Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. APPLE INC: Class Certification Filing Continued to Feb. 15, 2027 AT&T MOBILITY LLC: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: M&A Investigates Sale to Equity Residential AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Renault Suit Transferred to S.D. California BESTWAY USA: Agrees to Settle Spa Pump Class Suit for $2-Mil. BIG DEAL: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BOEING COMPANY: Court Consolidates Related Cases in Crockett BRILLIANT GENERAL: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California BRITISH COLUMBIA: Suit Continues After Protesters Prevail on Appeal BUILD-SOURCE CORP: Pena Seeks Conditional Collective Certification CAMBRIA DENTISTRY: Davydov Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Palardy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Court Partly Approves "Greene" Notice Plan CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Intercepts Website Users' Activity, Suit Says CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Intercepts Website Users' Activity, Suit Says CLARIVATE PLC: Appeal Bid Denied in Securities Fraud Suit CLEAN HARBORS: Bell Suit Removed to E.D. California COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL: S.K. Sues Over School's Policies & Practices COMMUNITY VETERINARY: Diamond Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 17 COVENANT HEALTHCARE: Montague Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Nurses DATAVANT GROUP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 DEVON ENERGY: Kunneman Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement DIRECT CONNECT: Distel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DISH WIRELESS: Faces CSL Class Suit Over Site Lease Agreement DJGN LEXINGTON: Rule 23 Classes in Landis Preliminarily Certified DOXIMITY INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suits DUKE HEALTH: Settles MyChart Privacy Class Action Suit for $3.74MM DXC TECHNOLOGY: Long Sues Over Non-Exempt Employees' Unpaid Wages EDWARD JONES: Black Advisors File Class Suit Over Racial Bias ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Portable Power Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Schuman Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs ENOVIX CORPORATION: Securities Suit Stayed EXXON MOBIL: Prevails in Securities Fraud Class Action Jury Trial FREEPORT, NY: Class Cert Response Filing Extended FRESH INNOVATIONS: Song Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FS KKR CAPITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 6 GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Bid to Dismiss, Compel Arbitration in Barron GLOBE LIFE: Miami General Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GNC HOLDINGS LLC: Bradley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GRAYL INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Youngren Alleges GROOME INDUSTRIAL: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GRUNS NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Most Claims in Gummies Suit HD GENERAL: Carter Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Allowed Leave to Seal Class Exhibits HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Commercial Messages HOLLEY PERFORMANCE: Nowlin Suit Removed to N.D. California HOUSTON EYE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach HUME HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Defer Summary Judgment Ruling ILLUMIFIN CORPORATION: Reed Files Suit in D. Minnesota INOTIV INC: Settlement in Cybersecurity Suit for Court OK INSTRUCTURE INC: Doe Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty INSTRUCTURE INC: Failed to Keep Private Info Secure, Singh Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Nelson Alleges INSTRUCTURE INC: Sabre Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Systems INTELLILOAN INC: Weston Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. IRON WALL SECURITY: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ITALIANTOUCH USA: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JACK ERWIN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges JET AVIATION FLIGHT: Rogers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KALSHI INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Illegal Gambling Operations KENTUCKY: KSU Students, Alumni File Discrimination Class Action KITCHENSYNC LLC: Kidney Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA KROGER CO: Henderson FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio LAGORIO BROTHERS INC: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LAPID YESHIVA: Ohana Sues Over Unpaid Compensations LARROUDE INC: Class Cert. Filing in Bashirova Due March 23, 2027 LEE UNIVERSITY: Court OKs $1.75MM Data Breach Settlement Deal LEUCADIA ASSET MANAGEMENT: Dennis Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LLOYD'S LONDON: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Continued July 16 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Grimes Suit Removed to E.D. California MADEWELL INC: Gupta Suit Removed to N.D. California MANO DELIVERY CORP: De La Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. McLANE FOODSERVICE: Lyons Suit Removed to C.D. California MEDITERRANEAN DELIGHT: Wood Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website MEDTRONIC INC: Loughry Files Suit in D. Minnesota MEDTRONIC INC: Williams Files Suit in D. Minnesota MEMPHIS, TN: Court Recommends Denial of Kiner Class Cert Bid MONSANTO COMPANY: Evans Suit Transferred to N.D. California MORNINGSTAR CAFE: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. NATURAL ALTERNATIVES: Tentative Deal Reached in Class, PAGA Suits NDC NEWBURGH: Mossos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge NEXTPOWER INC: Derivative, Securities Class Suits Dismissed NISSAN NORTH: Pretrial Conference Set for March 22, 2027 OGORGEOUS INC: Meade Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Roper Seeks Class Certification OUTFRONT MEDIA: Class Cert Filing in Arevalo Extended to August 21 PAPA JOHN'S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hussein Alleges PAYACTIV INC: Ortiz Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages PEAG LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Powell Suit Says PETROLEX II: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 2 PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRICE TRANSFER INC: Jimenez-Ruan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRIME SHINE: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Act Payment of Wages PROV1322 LLC: Nonato Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users QSR ENTERPRISES: FLSA-Notice Discovery OK'd for 24 Restos RB GLOBAL: Contract Manufacturing Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois RELX GROUP PLC: Wanna Suit Removed to D. Minnesota RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Clark Files Fraud Class Suit in D. Kan. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dey Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ROQUETTE AMERICA: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 14, 2027 SAALEX CORP: Yamada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SALTY DOGS ROOFING: Christ Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina SCHWARTZ VAYS LLC: Warren Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland SEFAS INNOVATION: Ocejo Files Suit in D. Massachusetts SIMONMED IMAGING: Fact Discovery in Ascent Extended to Oct. 8 SKECHERS USA: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Promotional Emails SOCAL PREMIER MARKETING: Rolon Sues Over Minimum Wages, Overtime SOUTH CENTRAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Class Suit for $2.8M STATE FARM: Parties Must Submit Status Report by May 27 STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 29 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Braking Systems SUPPORT PETS: Faces Goven Class Suit Over "ESA and PSD Products" TEAM GROUP: $1.1MM Settlement Claim Forms Deadline Set July 7 THINK TOGETHER: Durpree Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TROOPER KAHLER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 9, 2027 UNITED HEALTH: Big Island Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Care Counseling Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED STATES: McGee Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class UNITI SERVICES: Gonzalez Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas VALLEY PRIDE INC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VERITONE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit WALMAN OPTICAL COMPANY: Fields Files Suit in D. Minnesota WALMAN OPTICAL COMPANY: Nalley Files Suit in D. Minnesota WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Newman Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info WISE PUBLISHING: Intercepts Website Users' Activity, Hanson Says WONDERFUL CO: Bid for Class Certification Modified to July 15 YUN YE: Must Face HomeX Ponzi Putative Class Action [] Virginia Governor Intends to Veto Proposed Class Action Bill ********* ADMEDIARY LLC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Admediary, LLC. The case is styled as Alicia Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Admediary, LLC, Case No. 2026CUBT065967 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." AdMediary -- https://www.admediary.com/ -- is an online performance marketing company that specializes in lead generation via the internet and phone for all major industry verticals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com AKZO NOBEL COATINGS: Warner Files Suit in Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. The case is styled as Ivan Warner, Demarcus Crosby, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., Case No. 2026 CV 05 0563 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Tuscarawas Cty., May 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Complaint (E-Filing)." Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. -- https://www.akzonobel.com/en -- specializes in protective and functional coatings for various packaging applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NIGLES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St., Nw North Canton, OH 44720 ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Penning Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stacey Penning, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01105 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-04340. The Complaint lodges a claim on behalf of the putative Nationwide Class under the federal wiretap statute (the "Federal Wiretap Act"), which Plaintiff alleges imposes "statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day per violation or $10,000. Plaintiff also asserts a claim on behalf of the putative California Subclass under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 630 et seq. ("CIPA"), which she claims imposes statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, as well as three other state law claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. James W. Ettinger, Esq. Jacobo Enrique Rueda Fernandez, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Fax: (310) 785-4601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com jay.ettinger@hoganlovells.com jacobo.rueda@hoganlovells.com ALCLEAR LLC: Scott Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Asha Lee Scott, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALCLEAR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10112 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04994-AJR. On March 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following eleven causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to pay reporting time pay; meal period liability; rest break liability; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay wages upon termination; failure to timely pay wages when due; failure to keep required payroll records; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Systane-Brand Eye Drops ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Alcon Laboratories, Inc. misleadingly advertises that its Systane-brand eye drops are preservative-free in that the products contain boric acid, a common preservative. The 16-page complaint contends that the inclusion of boric acid in Systane eye drops contradicts the product's preservative-free labeling because the compound is synthetic and used to extend shelf life by inhibiting bacterial growth. According to the lawsuit, boric acid is commonly used in cosmetics and personal care products due to its antimicrobial properties, which can help prevent bacterial growth after contamination during product use. "Defendant knew that their representations and omissions were untrue and misleading, and deliberately made the aforementioned representations and omissions in order to deceive reasonable consumers," the filing states. Per the suit, Alcon's labeling of the Systane eye drops as preservative-free increased consumer demand for the product "based on the perceived features or benefits," which thereby increased the price for which the eye drops could be sold. Because consumers have no reasonable way to independently verify the accuracy of preservative-free claims, they must rely on product labeling and advertising set out by the manufacturer when making purchasing decisions, the case argues. "Defendant coerced consumers to base their purchasing decision in material part on false claims, thereby fraudulently, deceptively, and unfairly increasing consumer demand for the product," the complaint contends. The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased Systane eye drops from Amazon.com in September 2025 based on representations that the product was preservative-free. Because the drops were allegedly mislabeled, the plaintiff did not obtain the benefit of their bargain and was denied accurate information required under California consumer protection laws, including the state's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, the complaint claims. The Systane eye drop class action lawsuit seeks to represent all people in the United States who purchased Systane products within four years before the filing of the original complaint on April 1, 2026, through the date of class certification. [GN] ALN MEDICAL: Settlement Deal in Reed Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON REED, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN SIEBUHR, TIMOTHY KEGGINS, JEFFREY JUDKA, CAROLINE HURLEY, EUGENE ROSENBURG, LAUREN MULLIS, VIRGINIA GILLELAND, and ROBERT MEYERS, v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BETHANY MEDICAL CLINIC OF NEW YORK, PLLC, LONG VIEW SYSTEMS CORPORATION (USA), NATIONAL PAIN AND SPINE CENTERS, LLC, and HOAG CLINIC, Case No. 4:25-cv-03067-SMB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Bazis entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards to the Plaintiffs and final approval of class action settlement is granted. 2. The objection to the settlement agreement is overruled. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, a class action on behalf of a Settlement Class defined as: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice from ALN Medical Management LLC of the Data Incident, which occurred in March of 2024, indicating their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident (the "Settlement Class Members")." 4. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (1) all persons who are parents, subsidiaries, directors, officers, members, and agents of the Defendant ALN, and any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and that Judge's chamber's staff; (4) all individuals who timely opt-out of the Settlement; and (5) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 5. The Plaintiffs Cameron Reed, Eugene Rosenberg, Lauren Mullis, Jeffrey Judka, Virginia Gilleland, Robert Meyers, Caroline Hurley, and Timothy Keggins are appointed as representatives for the settlement class. 6. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC are appointed as counsel for the settlement class. 7. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $29,082.06. 8. The Class Representatives are awarded Service Awards in the amount of $2,500.00 to each Class Representative. ALN is a "a healthcare advisory firm that provides services such as physician, facility, and non-participating provider hospital billing, professional coding, claims recovery, review of billing practices, and credentialing to other healthcare-related Clients." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oAs42T at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs ------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that Amazon may soon have to add tariff refunds to its deliveries. A class-action lawsuit filed in Seattle claims that the e-commerce platform owes customers "hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs" that it has yet to claim from the government. These "unlawful tariffs" are the extra fees President Trump imposed on foreign goods using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump didn't have the legal authority to enact these tariffs, which opened the floodgates for companies to demand refunds. Although many big brands have already sought tariff reimbursements, Amazon conspicuously held back from filing claims. Lawyers behind this class-action suit believe they know why. The lawsuit claims, "Amazon has refused to seek a refund -- not because it lacks a legal basis to do so, but because it seeks to curry favor with Trump by allowing the federal government to retain the funds." As evidence, the lawsuit brought up an incident in April 2025 when Amazon allegedly "planned to start displaying how much of a product's cost came from the IEEPA tariffs." The suit goes on to claim the Trump administration wasn't too happy about that idea, suggesting that President Trump gave Amazon founder Jeff Bezos a buzz to buzz off. It's unclear how much this lawsuit could return to customers because it only lists a general estimate of the "total amount of IEEPA duties" as of March 2026 at around "$166 billion." Since Amazon is such a massive company, lawyers argue it likely owes "hundreds of millions of dollars" in these funds. The consumers' tab for tariffs Although companies pay the price for higher tariffs, new data from the Federal Reserve shows there's been a near "full pass-through" of tariff costs to consumers. In fact, the Fed estimates that core inflation rose by 0.8% through February 2026 solely because of tariffs. What does that mean in dollar terms? The Tax Foundation estimates the average American household paid about $1,000 in added costs from tariffs in 2025. But according to both the Tax Foundation and the Yale Budget Lab, those costs could climb by about $700 in 2026. According to the recent lawsuit against Amazon, the e-commerce giant was fully aware of the burden it was placing on consumers. As the suit alleges, Amazon's CEO Andy Jassy "anticipated third-party sellers on Amazon Marketplace would pass the cost of the IEEPA tariffs onto consumers" back in 2025. During his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2025, Jassy openly said that tariffs had already begun to "creep" into product prices on the website. According to Business Insider, Jassy added that, "At a certain point, because retail is, as you know, a mid-single digit operating margin business, if people's costs go up by 10%, there aren't a lot of places to absorb it." Prime time for a payback? Although this class-action suit means it's possible you could get some cash from Amazon, don't expect two-day shipping. Class-action lawsuits can take years to resolve. According to the company MoneyPilot -- which helps its subscribers find and file these claims -- the expected range is anywhere between 1 to 10 years. This case was only recently filed, so the first step is formal certification with a judge. After that, it would move to settlement discussions with Amazon or a trial. If there's a win for consumers, you'll likely get a notification through your Amazon account. Just be sure to only follow info on official portals and reputable news outlets covering this case. High-profile class-action lawsuits are commonly used in phishing scams, according to the AARP. Although a lot is up in the air about this Amazon case, there are plenty of other class-action lawsuits related to tariffs at other companies, including Costco, FedEx and UPS. For the latest details on these lawsuits, you can monitor the company's official website or search for keywords like "tariff" on www.classaction.org. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Rose Suit Transferred from C.D. Cal. to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as DEVIN ROSE, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01508, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 29, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01508-BAT to the proceeding. The case was previously removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 23, 2026. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the California False Advertising Law and for unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory, statutory, punitive, and treble damages, as well as restitution, attorneys' fees, and pre and post judgment interest. Amazon.com Inc. is an American multinational technology and e-commerce giant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: isabelm@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com serveht@potterhandy.com The Defendant is represented by: Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. FENWICK & WEST One Front St., 33rd Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 E-mail: jwakefield@fenwick.com - and - Deena J. G. Feit, Esq. FENWICK & WEST 401 Union St., 5th Fl. Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 913-4335 Facsimile: (206) 389-4511 E-mail: dfeit@fenwick.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Mares Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS BRUCE MARES, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; LAST PIECE LOGISTICS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2CECG03995 (Filed Dec. 14, 2022) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 21, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-at-02218 to the proceeding. On behalf of Plaintiff and alleged aggrieved employees, the PAGA Complaint seeks civil penalties for violations of Labor Code. Amazon denies that it employed or jointly employed Plaintiff or any other LPL employees, that it violated any laws respecting them, or that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. Amazon reserves the right to provide additional calculations if Plaintiff's theories change, the suit says. Amazon.com Services LLC is a major subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. Founded in 2002, the entity operates many of Amazon's core business divisions, including consumer retail fulfillment, digital media, and web services platforms.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Eva M. Nofri, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com eva.nofri@morganlewis.com APPLE INC: Class Certification Filing Continued to Feb. 15, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. FERN MARGOLIS, MAYER MARGOLIS, JUAN PADILLA, ZEV LEWINSON, EDUARDO ARANIBAR, EARL MCFARLAND, GLENNIS PARKER, and SHAUN BIDDISCOMBE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-03882-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Pitts entered an order setting the following deadlines: 1. Apple will substantially complete its production of additional custodial material by Oct. 16, 2026; 2. The June 30, 2026 fact discovery cutoff deadline shall be continued to Dec. 19, 2026; 3. The Aug. 14, 2026 deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert disclosures and reports regarding Class Certification shall be continued to Feb. 15, 2027; 4. The Oct. 16, 2026 deadline for Apple's opposition to motion for class certification and designation of rebuttal experts with reports shall be continued to April 16, 2027; 5. The Dec. 4, 2026 deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification shall be continued to June 4, 2027. The Defendant is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CM0C2g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Austin P. Van, Esq. Michael Grunfeld, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com avan@pomlaw.com mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com jpafiti@pomlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Phyllis A. Jones, Esq. Marc Capuano, Esq. Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 6323-4800 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com pajones@cov.com mcapuano@cov.com clannin@cov.com AT&T MOBILITY LLC: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Al Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Case No. CGC26636531 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Torts." AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Reed, Esq. 2080 23rd Street No. 7032 San Pablo, CA 94806 Phone: 628-280-7116 AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: M&A Investigates Sale to Equity Residential ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (NYSE: AVB) related to its sale to Equity Residential. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, AvalonBay shareholders are expected to receive 2.793 shares of Equity Residential common stock for each share of AvalonBay common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/avalonbay-communities-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] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Renault Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kristin Renault, Julia Brucato, Phillip Renault, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Does 1 - 5, Case No. 8:25-cv-00729 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02966-WQH-BJW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Rent Lease & Ejectment for Property Damage. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. -- https://www.avaloncommunities.com/ -- is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that invests in apartments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 East Amerige Avenue, Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 92832 Phone: (833) 729-5529 Fax: (833) 972-9546 - and - Richard Kim, Esq. MORRISON AND FOERSTER 12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130-3014 Phone: (858) 720-5100 Fax: (858) 720-5125 The Defendants are represented by: Antony D. Nash, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 314-1084 Fax: (858) 314-1501 - and - Gabriel Rossman, Esq. Mathilda S. McGee-Tubb, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 348-1698 Email: GRossman@mintz.com msmcgee-tubb@mintz.com - and - Valerie Phan, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 509-6000 Email: valerie.phan@troutman.com BESTWAY USA: Agrees to Settle Spa Pump Class Suit for $2-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased a Bestway AirJet Spa Pump or Bestway HydroJet Spa Pump with certain model numbers between May 2021 and May 2024 may be eligible to claim up to $75 from a class action settlement. Bestway (USA) Inc. agreed to pay $2 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it sold certain defective spa pumps that could cause fires. The lawsuit also claimed the Bestway provided an insufficient recall remedy. Who can file a claim? Individuals are considered class members who may be eligible for compensation if they meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased a Bestway AirJet Spa Pump or Bestway HydroJet Spa Pump with one of these model numbers: P05332, P05339, P05711, P05807, P07000, P07001, P05511, P07034 or P07572. -- They purchased the product between May 2021 and May 2024. -- They purchased the product while residing in the United States, including its states, districts or territories. How much can class members get? Eligible class members can claim a cash payment of up to $75 depending on the number of claims. The total amount available for all cash payments is capped at $2 million. If the total value of valid claims plus incentive awards to the plaintiffs exceeds this cap, the settlement administrator will reduce each cash payment proportionally (pro rata). The settlement provides two main categories for payment: -- Individuals who received a cash payment in the spa pump recall and submit a valid claim by Aug. 17, 2026 -- Individuals who no longer have their Bestway spa pump and submit a valid claim with proof of purchase by Aug. 17, 2026 Additionally, any class member who received a replacement pump through the spa pump recall will automatically receive a one-year extension to the Bestway limited warranty for their replacement pump. This benefit does not require a claim form. How to claim a Bestway spa pump payout If a claimant still has their spa pump but has not participated in the recall, they must first participate in the recall at before submitting a claim. Class members can file the online claim form or download and print a PDF claim form to fill out and mail to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Aug. 17, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Bestway Spa Class Action Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25191, Santa Ana, CA 92799 What proof or documentation is required to submit a claim? -- If the claimant still has their pump and participated in the spa pump recall, they must provide the spa pump recall claim number. -- If the claimant no longer has their pump, they must provide proof of purchase, such as a photograph of the product or a confirmation email showing the purchase. Payout options -- Mailed check to the address provided on the claim form -- Electronic payment via PayPal, Venmo, ACH transfer or Zelle (online claims only) Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $807,591 -- Payments to eligible class members: Up to $2,000,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each for three representatives ($7,500 total) (included in the $2,000,000 cap) Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 17, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 17, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 18, 2026 When is the Bestway spa pump settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments to eligible class members within 45 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Bestway sold defective spa pumps that could cause fires and provided an insufficient recall remedy. Bestway denies any wrongdoing. Both parties agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $75 Deadline: August 17, 2026 [GN] BIG DEAL: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BIG DEAL DISCOUNT OUTLET, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01214 (M.D. Fla., May 8, 2026) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after April 2023 without being adequately compensated. Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by the Defendant as an assistant manager from approximately January 4, 2023 to April 22, 2026, or approximately 3 years and 3.5 months. Big Deal is a retail store specializing in selling building materials and home improvement items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Montaner-Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Telephone: katherine@simpsonmenalaw.com BOEING COMPANY: Court Consolidates Related Cases in Crockett ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CROCKETT, JEFF CLOUTIER, ROBERT W. KIRK, and LEVI FIGUEROA individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-06073-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order as follows: -- Crockett et al. v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-06073-BHS and LaraTrespalacios v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 2:26-cv-01135-BHS are consolidated, for purposes of case management. -- The Plaintiffs' counsel for Crockett and counsel for Lara-Trespalacios must file motions for appointment of interim class counsel no later than May 29, 2026. -- Within 28 days of the Court's decision on all motions for appointment of interim class counsel, any motion for joinder of the two matters must be filed. -- Within 28 days of the Court's decision on all motions for joinder, or within 28 days after the deadline to file a motion for joinder of parties if no such motion is filed, Boeing must file its responsive pleading(s), including any anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the operative complaint(s) in the consolidated actions. -- Except for the briefing regarding the above motions, the consolidated actions are stayed, including any further briefing or decision on the Crockett Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, until the Court decides the motion(s) to dismiss, or until the day after the deadline to file a motion(s) to dismiss if no such motion is filed. -- Per the Court's May 4, 2026, Minute Order, the Crockett Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA certification is re-noted for 30 days following the Court's order on Boeing's motion to dismiss the Crockett complaint, or 30 days after Boeing's deadline to file a motion to dismiss the Crockett complaint, if none is filed. On Feb. 12, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages. Thereafter, on March 30, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint, which added Levi Figueroa as a named Plaintiff, as well as his claims from Figueroa. Then, the Plaintiff in Figueroa stipulated to voluntary dismissal of that case. Boeing is an American multinational corporation that designs and manufactures airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites, and missiles worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UkDEqx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Pizl, Esq. Daniel J. Teimouri, Esq. Erica L. Molina, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 Thirty-Ninth Ave SW, Ste 13 Puyallup, WA 98373-3690 Telephone: (253) 446-7668 E-mail: jim@ententelaw.com dteimouri@ententelaw.com erica@ententelaw.com - and - Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Victoria Ainsworth, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 E-mail: jamie@crosnerlegal.com tainsworth@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrea Delgadillo Ostrovsky, Esq. T. Ray Ivey, Esq. Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq. Kevin F. Gaffney, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: andrea.ostrovsky@morganlewis.com ray.ivey@morganlewis.com lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com kevin.gaffney@morganlewis.com BRILLIANT GENERAL: Martinez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marta Martinez, an individual, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BRILLIANT GENERAL MAINTENANCE, INC., NORDSTROM, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2601963 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 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02511. The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action asserts the following 7 causes of action: Failure To Pay All Wages, Minimum, Overtime, Double Time Wages in violation of California Labor Code; Failure To Provide Compliant Meal Periods in violation of California Labor Code and Wage Order; Failure To Provide Rest Periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and Wage Order 5 2001; Failure To Provide Accurate Itemized Earnings Statements in violation of California Labor Codes; Failure to Pay Earned Wages in violation of California Labor Codes; Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenditures in violation of California Labor Code; and Unfair Business Practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amy K. Todd, Esq. Riley B. Doyle, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Amy.Todd@jacksonlewis.com Riley.Doyle@jacksonlewis.com - and - Kelli M. Dreger, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Kelli.Dreger@jacksonlewis.com - and - Benjamin A. Emmert, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 998-4150 Facsimile: (408) 288-5686 Bemmert@littler.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Suit Continues After Protesters Prevail on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Coast Reporter reports that Fairy Creek anti-logging protesters have won an appeal against a court ruling that denied the certification of their proposed class-action lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments. The class-action application now goes back to the B.C. Supreme Court for a new decision, after the B.C. Court of Appeal found the judge who rejected the claim erred on several points. The applicants, protesters Arvin Singh Dang and Kristy Morgan, say the RCMP wrongfully barred them and others from the Vancouver Island protest site, where Teal Cedar Products had secured an injunction against the protests targeting old-growth logging. The appeal ruling issued Wednesday, May 20, notes that while the protests and logging in the area that ran from 2021 to 2023 are now over, the litigation continues. The unanimous ruling by the three appeal judges says the original judge erred by refusing to admit affidavits that had been sworn for another application, and also by concluding that the class was overbroad. They say claims of a breach of the applicants' Charter rights should have been made on merits, and that the original judge was mistaken to conclude that a class proceeding was not the preferred path for a "fair and efficient resolution." The decision whether Dang and Morgan are appropriate representatives in the proposed class action was also sent back to the lower court. Justice Geoffrey Gomery, who wrote the appeal ruling, said the lower court judge was mistaken to decide that Charter issues related to the exclusion zone policy lacked "commonality." He said a class proceeding was the preferable procedure compared with the alternatives of individual lawsuits or complaints to the RCMP's Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. The applicants are seeking class certification on behalf of anyone whose Charter rights were infringed by the RCMP's enforcement of the injunction. "The class in this case would include people who were no more than bystanders to the protests, but whose liberty of movement was nonetheless impeded by the RCMP," Gomery wrote. He wrote that while such a class would include people whose claims wouldn't benefit much from a determination that the RCMP were operating an exclusion zone policy, it would not include anyone whose claim would be prejudiced by the determination. Hundreds of people were arrested in the enforcement of the injunction. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 20, 2026. [GN] BUILD-SOURCE CORP: Pena Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE NEPTALI MORA PENA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. BUILD-SOURCE CORP., and PHIL PAVICH., Case No. 1:25-cv-09471 (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Build-source is in the NYC construction industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fWKUQD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CAMBRIA DENTISTRY: Davydov Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID DAVYDOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CAMBRIA DENTISTRY PLLC, SMILE CRAFTERS, INC., KOOROSH SHAMTOUB, and SHAHRIAR "SHAWN" DAVARAN, Case No. 1:26-cv-03039 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2026) seeks unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2020 through June 2025, a period spanning approximately two hundred 254 weeks, first as a Dental Hygienist and then, upon promotion, as Treatment Coordinator. The Plaintiff's responsibilities included, but were not limited to, reviewing patient's dental and health history, conducting dental cleanings, taking dental x-rays, and documentation of treatment. In spite of same, Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, including for all overtime hours he worked for every workweek, the suit says. Cambria is doing dental practice business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423-2327 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Palardy Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS PALARDY, v. CAPGEMINI AMERICA INC, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:26-cv-05082-DCF (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file his motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1). The Plaintiff requests an extension of 180 days from the filing date to file the class certification motion, or alternatively such additional time as the Court deems appropriate, to allow for appointment of class counsel and completion of preliminary discovery necessary to support a proper certification motion. No prejudice to the Defendants results from an extension. The Defendants have not yet appeared in this action and discovery has not commenced. The interests of potential class members — non-South Asian American workers subjected to Capgemini's discriminatory screening and placement practices — are best served by allowing adequate time to obtain qualified class counsel under Rule 23(g) rather than requiring a premature certification motion that cannot be properly supported without discovery. The Plaintiff filed this action on April 10 2026 asserting class claims on behalf of non-South Asian American workers subjected to discriminatory screening and placement practices by Capgemini America Inc. Capgemini is an IT and business consulting firm that provides cloud, artificial intelligence, data analytics, and digital transformation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s1hExt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Palardy Pro Se Plaintiff 1839 N Merion Way, Apt 302 Fayetteville, AR 72704 Telephone: (469) 970-6655 E-mail: frankpalardy57@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Gilbert L. Sanchez, Esq. KEMP SMITH LLP 221 N. Kansas | Suite 1700 El Paso, TX 79901 Telephone: (915) 543-6448 E-mail: gilbert.sanchez@kempsmith.com - and - Eva Madison, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 217 E. Dickson Street, Suite 204, Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 582-6102 E-mail: ECMadison@littler.com CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Court Partly Approves "Greene" Notice Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Amanda K. Brailsford of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Kindra Greene's Motion to Approve Proposed Notice in the case captioned Kindra Greene, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cascadia Healthcare, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-AKB (D. Idaho). Greene, a former registered nurse for Cascadia, filed this action alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to properly compensate employees for overtime work. On October 15, 2024, the Court certified a putative collective group for all hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for or on behalf of Cascadia at any Cascadia facility who (1) received an automatic meal period deduction, or (2) received shift differentials, on-call pay, or non-discretionary bonuses at any time from May 18, 2020, through the present. The parties met and conferred on multiple occasions but were unable to agree on an acceptable notice or plan for distribution. On the disputed notice language, the Court resolved five issues. First, the Court agreed with Cascadia that the phrase if any should be included in the statement of neutrality, finding that the addition conveys the neutrality of the Court. Second, the Court declined to include Cascadia's proposed language suggesting that potential opt-in plaintiffs were not employed by Cascadia, noting that it had previously declined to resolve Cascadia's employer status and that the proposed language risked confusing potential opt-in plaintiffs regarding their eligibility to participate. Third, the Court found the word vehemently unnecessary in describing Cascadia's denial, as Greene's proposed language accurately captured Cascadia's stance. Fourth, the Court agreed with Cascadia that the phrase "to the extent permissible by law" must be included in the disclosure on potential costs. Fifth, the Court allowed Greene to retain the language and/or its affiliated entities in the consent form, finding the caution reasonable and not inconvenient to Cascadia. On the forms of notice, the Court found that issuing notice via text message was unwarranted, as Greene had not provided a sufficient reason why text message was needed beyond the other approved forms. The Court similarly declined to require workplace posting, finding that Greene provided no explanation of how posting was likely to result in more effective notice and that notice by first class mail and email is reasonably calculated to reach potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Court ordered Plaintiff to revise the Notice and Consent Form within fourteen days and submit the revised proposed Notice and Consent Form to the Court for approval. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SyqiBG from PacerMonitor.com CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Intercepts Website Users' Activity, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and CITIZENS BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, Case No. 2:26-at-00862 (E.D. Cal., May 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.citizensbank.com, a website that Defendants jointly own, operate, and provide for public access and use in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendants were causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal and sensitive browsing activity, including pages communicating his verbatim search query for "debt management" and communications reflecting his interests in reducing debt and financial stress. The Defendants allegedly caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing, the page titles, descriptive event slugs that themselves restate the content of each page, and the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, all of which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendants surreptitiously embed and operate third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent, the suit contends. The Defendants have done so from prior to the beginning of the class period in this case and continuously through to today and ongoingly. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. Citizens owns, operates, and controls the Website. Citizens' own Online Privacy Policy expressly applies to and covers Citizens Financial Group, Inc. together with its family of companies including Citizens Bank, N.A., and Citizens Financial Group, Inc. uses the unified label "Citizens" throughout that policy to refer jointly to itself and to its operating subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Intercepts Website Users' Activity, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and CITIZENS BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, Case No. 1:26-cv-03933-EGC (E.D. Cal., May 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.citizensbank.com, a website that Defendants jointly own, operate, and provide for public access and use in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendants were causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal and sensitive browsing activity, including pages communicating his verbatim search query for "debt management" and communications reflecting his interests in reducing debt and financial stress. The Defendants allegedly caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing, the page titles, descriptive event slugs that themselves restate the content of each page, and the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, all of which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendants surreptitiously embed and operate third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent, the suit contends. The Defendants have done so from prior to the beginning of the class period in this case and continuously through to today and ongoingly. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. Citizens owns, operates, and controls the Website. Citizens' own Online Privacy Policy expressly applies to and covers Citizens Financial Group, Inc. together with its family of companies including Citizens Bank, N.A., and Citizens Financial Group, Inc. uses the unified label "Citizens" throughout that policy to refer jointly to itself and to its operating subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com CLARIVATE PLC: Appeal Bid Denied in Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, againstCLARIVATE PLC et al., Defendants, 22-CV-394(EK)(MMH)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's motion to certify the court's March 30, 2026 order for interlocutory appeal and, in the alternative, denied its motion for reconsideration, in a securities fraud class action brought by Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and other plaintiffs who purchased Clarivate PLC stock. The plaintiffs brought securities fraud claims against Clarivate and its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, among other defendants. PricewaterhouseCoopers challenged the court's prior determination that it could be held liable, subject to the due-diligence defense, for misstatements and omissions in the Clarivate registration statements it certified. On the motion for interlocutory appeal, the court found that PricewaterhouseCoopers failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The court held that there was no substantial ground for difference of opinion, finding that PricewaterhouseCoopers's reading of the Securities Act was squarely foreclosed by the plain language of Section 11(a)(4), other securities laws and regulations, and prevailing case law in the Second Circuit. The court further noted that out-of-circuit disagreement, including the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hunt v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, does not establish a substantial ground for difference of opinion. The court also found that an immediate appeal would not c of the litigation, since the plaintiffs' claims against Clarivate, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and the individual defendants would survive regardless of PricewaterhouseCoopers's dismissal. On the motion for reconsideration, the court found that PricewaterhouseCoopers largely relied on arguments already considered and rejected in the prior order. The court noted c, read alongside New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds v. DeCarlo, did not constitute clear error. The court also rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers's argument that the prior order erroneously treated certifying auditors as strictly liable to the same extent as issuers, finding it a repackaging of the original motion to dismiss argument. Accordingly, both motions were denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=smmad0 from PacerMonitor.com 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. CU26-01788 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 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00783. The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Failure to Pay Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; all in Violation of Cal. Lab. Codes and Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.[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 COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL: S.K. Sues Over School's Policies & Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly Situated v. COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 300, DR. MARTINA SMITH, in her official capacity as Superintendent for Community Unit School District 300, and DOES 1–10, Case No. 1:26-cv-05388 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2026), is brought challenging a public school district's policies, practices, and customs of subjecting minor students to psychological and identity-based interventions, while deliberately excluding their parents from participation, consent, and even knowledge. The Defendants, through their employees and agents, sought to socially transition Plaintiff S.K.'s minor child, T.K., within the school environment, including by using alternate names and pronouns, without providing Plaintiff S.K. with prior notice or obtaining Plaintiff S.K.'s involvement. Plaintiff S.K. was not informed of these actions at the time they were initiated and did not have an opportunity to participate in decisions concerning the implementation of these actions. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff S.K. or T.K. with information explaining the nature of the supports being implemented, including such supports' purpose, potential risks, possible side effects, or available alternatives. As a result, Plaintiff S.K. was unable to make informed decisions regarding T.K.'s care and support within the school setting. After Plaintiff S.K. became aware of the actions taken by Defendants, Defendants continued to withhold material information regarding the supports being provided to T.K., including details concerning how those supports would be implemented in practice. The Plaintiff S.K. was not provided a meaningful opportunity to be involved in the development or modification of plans affecting T.K., and requests to do so were denied. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff S.K. was excluded from decisions affecting T.K.'s care, development, and well-being within the school environment and was deprived of the information necessary to effectively support and advocate for T.K., says the complaint. The Plaintiff S.K. is the mother of T.K., a minor who is a student at one of the high schools within and operated by the School District. The Defendant School District is a political subdivision of the State of Illinois, responsible for operating and supervising public schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ajay Gupta, Esq. 2849 Bond Circle Naperville, Illinois 60563 Phone: (630) 854-7194 Email: ajguptaemail@gmail.com COMMUNITY VETERINARY: Diamond Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA DIAMOND, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. COMMUNITY VETERINARY CLINICS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; PETIQ, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV009787 (Filed April 17, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 21, 2026. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01896-AC to the proceeding. The complaint alleges claims for relief against Defendants and unnamed Doe defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges claims for unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods and failure to provide required rest periods. Community Veterinary is a parent company or operational entity that provides accessible veterinary services and diagnostic care for companion animals.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Carla S. Espinoza, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: zander.chemers@ogletree.com carla.espinoza@ogletree.com COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Commvault Systems Inc. ("Commvault" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CVLT) securities between April 29, 2025 and January 26, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Commvault investors have until July 17, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss your legal rights by email at howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, by telephone at (215) 638-4847 or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. What Happened? On January 27, 2026, Commvault published third quarter 2026 fiscal results, including annualized recurring revenue ("ARR") of 22% and a total net new ARR was $39 million, falling short of the prior quarter's guidance for $45 million of net new ARR for the quarter. Management revealed in the accompanying earnings call that the variation was due to product mix, including increased SaaS deals in the quarter. On this news, Commvault's stock price fell $40.23, or 31.1%, to close at $89.13 per share on January 27, 2026, thereby injuring investors. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Commvault knew or recklessly disregarded the impact that different types of sales would have on its ARR growth; (2) the variation in net ARR growth is strongly based on the type of sale Commvault is making, thus, the Company's projected net new ARR should not have been determined without properly factoring in sale type; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contact To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Commvault securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, Website at: www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] COVENANT HEALTHCARE: Montague Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Nurses ---------------------------------------------------------------- JODY MONTAGUE CHRISTOPHER HEBERT, and JESSICA MURDAY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. COVENANT HEALTHCARE, Case No. 1:26-cv-11649-SKD-PTM (E.D. Mich., May 21, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Registered Nurses Jody Montague and Christopher Hebert and Clinical Associate Jessica Murday, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former Registered Nurses, Nursing Care Assistants, and Clinical Associates (Nursing Staff). The patients are frequently placed in hallway beds due to overcrowding. Emergency room Registered Nurses working in this environment carry patient loads of three to five critically ill patients at a time in trauma rooms and one-to-six ratios in the general ECC—conditions under which no nurse can safely step away from patient care for a full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal break, says the suit. Covenant operates a 65-bed Emergency Care Center (ECC) in Saginaw, Michigan that routinely operates at or beyond its licensed capacity. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. Grant M. Vlahopoulos, Esq HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St., Suite125 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (844) 487-9489 E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com grant@hurwitzlaw.com DATAVANT GROUP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Ciox Health, LLC, which does business as Datavant Group, has agreed to a $900,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare data platform failed to protect the sensitive information in its care from a May 2024 data breach. The $900,000 Datavant Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 17, 2026. The deal covers all individuals whose private information may have been compromised in the May 2024 Datavant data breach. Approximately 58,309 people are covered by the settlement, court documents state. The court-approved website for the Datavant Group data breach settlement can be found at DatavantDataIncidentSettlement.com. Datavant settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses stemming from the breach. Losses covered by this benefit include telephone charges, cell phone minutes, internet charges, the purchase of credit reports and credit monitoring services between May 9, 2024 and August 18, 2026, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead file a claim form to receive an alternative pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of this cash payment will depend on the total number of valid claims filed. In addition to either monetary relief option, all class members can file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for one year of expanded identity theft and fraud monitoring, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. To file a Datavant settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the class member ID listed 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 Datavant settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 18, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Datavant Group settlement following a hearing on September 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Datavant Group class action lawsuit claimed that the healthcare data accessibility platform failed to implement proper cybersecurity safeguards to protect the sensitive information in its care, which supposedly allowed an unauthorized actor to access an employee's email account via a phishing attack on or around May 9, 2024. Per court documents, private information potentially compromised as a result of the data breach included names, dates of birth, addresses, contact information, Social Security numbers, driver's license and passport numbers, financial account information and health information. [GN] DEVON ENERGY: Kunneman Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kunneman Properties LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon Energy Corporation, et al., Case no. 6:26-cv-00131-DES (E.D. Okla), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving the classwide settlement. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the Court: 1. Certify the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes; 2. Preliminarily approve the Settlement; 3. Appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class; 4. Appoint Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of Bradford & Wilson PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel and Rex A. Sharp of Sharp Law LLP as Additional Counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. Approve the form and manner of the proposed Notice; 6. Appoint JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; 7. Appoint MidFirst Bank as Escrow Agent; and 8. Set a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and Administration, Notice, and distribution costs, and a case contribution award to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify Settlement Class consisting of: "All non-excluded persons or entities who are royalty owners in Oklahoma wells who received royalty payments from Devon for the Claim Period for the Class Wells operated by Devon." The Class claims relate to royalty payments for gas and its constituents (such as residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, Nitrogen, or drip condensate). Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Devon, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates; (4) Fortis Sooner Trend, LLC, Fortis Minerals II, LLC, FMII STM, LLC, Sooner Trend Minerals, LLC, Phenom Minerals, LLC, Charles David Nutley, Danny George, Dan McClure, Kelly McClure Callant, C. Benjamin Nutley, White River Royalties, LLC, and their relatives, affiliates, successors, and assigns; (5) persons or entities that the Plaintiff's counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (6) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (7) officers of the Court. After years of hard-fought litigation and negotiation, the Plaintiff has secured a sizeable recovery for the Settlement Class, reaching a settlement with Defendants worth $52,500,000 in cash for the Plaintiff's class claims for gas royalty underpayment under Oklahoma law. The Plaintiff is an Oklahoma-based mineral and royalty holding company. Devon is an independent U.S. oil and gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQFyrv at no extra charge.[CC] 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 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 fax E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com – and – Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Scott B. Goodger, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com sgoodger@midwest-law.com DIRECT CONNECT: Distel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Distel, an individual, and others similarly situated v. DIRECT CONNECT CONNECTIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26NVVCV01527 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Wage Statement Violations; Unfair Business Practices; Declaratory Relief. The Plaintiff was not free from DCC's control and direction in the performance of his work, he did not perform work outside the usual course of DCC's business, and he was not customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business providing services of the same nature as those he performed for DCC. Pursuant to DCC's misclassification, Plaintiff was deprived of overtime wages, meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, business expense reimbursements, and other protections and benefits to which he was entitled as an employee under California law. Plaintiff also brings claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, and for unjust enrichment and unfair business practices arising from the same course of conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by DCC to perform appliance installation and delivery services, with a substantial portion of the services occurring in Los Angeles County on July 25, 2023,. Direct Connect Connections, Inc. ("DCC") is, and at all relevant times was, California corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Ramirez, Esq. THE RAMIREZ LEGAL GROUP 132 S. Lasky Dr., Floor 2, #350 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (800) 411-0428 Facsimile: (424) 401-7375 Email: april@theramirezlegalgroup.com DISH WIRELESS: Faces CSL Class Suit Over Site Lease Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- CSL GARAGE, LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISH WIRELESS L.L.C. and ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-00616-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 21, 2026) concerns DISH's nationwide effort to walk away from a massive number of agreements that DISH used to build the country's first 5G Open RAN wireless network. According to the complaint, DISH leased space from CSL's predecessor, and from hundreds, if not thousands, of similarly situated class members across the United States, on substantially identical terms, in order to install and operate the cellular equipment that powers its Boost Mobile network. After DISH entered into long-term leases, licenses, or similar agreements with property owners throughout the United States, DISH's ultimate parent, EchoStar, elected to monetize its spectrum assets by selling them to AT&T and SpaceX in three transactions worth approximately $42 billion, and DISH decided it no longer needed (or wanted to pay for) the cell sites for which it previously contracted to lease, license, or use on a long-term basis. DISH simply walked away from its obligations to Plaintiff and other members of the class. Beginning in the second half of 2025 and continuing in to early 2026, DISH sent out a series of substantially identical letters sent to Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class announcing that it would not perform its remaining obligations under its agreements, the suit says. DISH did not pay any termination fees. Instead, DISH invented an excuse: it claimed that "unforeseeable actions by the FCC" had triggered force majeure, frustration of purpose, and impossibility, and that DISH’s obligations were therefore "excused." That excuse is meritless. Nothing in the agreement with Plaintiff or other members of the Class allows DISH to avoid its payment obligations because it chose to conspire with EchoStar to sell off its spectrum for a massive profit. The supposed force majeure event described in these boilerplate letters is, in any event, fictitious. The FCC did not order EchoStar to sell anything. EchoStar publicly maintained that any FCC effort to revoke its spectrum licenses would be "unlawful, unconstitutional, discriminatory, and utterly baseless." The Plaintiff, as assignee of the original Landlord under the Site Lease Agreement, and the other members of the putative Class, are entitled to all amounts due and to come due under their agreements, together with a declaration that no force majeure, frustration of purpose, or impossibility has occurred and that the agreements remain in full force and effect. CSL Garage is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. CSL is the assignee of Capitol Plaza Garage, Ltd. and the current Landlord under the Site Lease Agreement at issue in this action, pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption of Lease dated as of May 20, 2026. DISH Wireless provides wireless voice and data services in the United States under its Boost Mobile brand. DISH is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of EchoStar. EchoStar is the ultimate parent of DISH but was not a signatory of the Site Lease Agreement with Plaintiff or any other substantially similar agreements with the putative class members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. Joseph F. Murray, Esq. Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. Jonathan P. Misny, Esq. Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com murray@mmmb.com moul@mmmb.com misny@mmmb.com - and - William E. Nakasian, Esq. Douglas M. Mansfield, Esq. Lape Mansfield Nakasian & Gibson, LLC 9980 Brewster Lane, Suite 150 Powell, OH 43065 Telephone: (614) 763-2316 Facsimile: (614) 467-3704 E-mail: wenakasian@lmng-law.com dmansfield@lmng-law.com DJGN LEXINGTON: Rule 23 Classes in Landis Preliminarily Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB LANDIS, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, V. DJGN LEXINGTON, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00394-DCR (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Reeves entered an order as follows: 1. The plaintiffs' unopposed motion seeking to certify the settlement classes for settlement purposes only is granted. 2. The Rule 23 Classes are preliminarily certified under Rule 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes only. 3. The Rule 23 Classes are defined as: i. Kentucky Class: "All current and former Servers paid less than minimum wage plus tips at the Defendants' Bowling Green and/or Lexington, Kentucky restaurant(s) at any time from Oct. 21, 2022, through Feb. 24, 2026, for FLSA and for Kentucky state law claims"; ii. Ohio Class: "All current and former Servers paid less than minimum wage plus tips at the Defendants' Cincinnati, Ohio restaurant at any time from Oct. 9, 2022, through Feb. 24, 2026, for FLSA and Ohio state law claims"; and iii. Indiana Class: 'All current and former Servers paid less than minimum wage plus tips at the Defendants' Indianapolis, Indiana restaurant at any time from Oct. 29, 2023, through Feb. 24, 2026, for Indiana state law claims." 4. Brandon Zimmerman is appointed as the class representative of the Rule 23 Ohio Class. Caleb Landis is appointed as the class representative of the Rule 23 Kentucky Class. Matthew Smith is appointed as the class representative of the Rule 23 Indiana Class. 5. David W. Garrison, Joshua A. Frank, and Nicole A. Chanin of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC, are appointed as Class Counsel. 6. The attorney's fees, costs, and service awards provided for in the proposed Settlement are preliminarily approved. 7. A Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026, beginning at the hour of 9:00 a.m., at the United States Courthouse in Lexington, Kentucky. DJGN is a privately-held company that operates in the restaurants industry. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Gkwn1 at no extra charge.[CC] DOXIMITY INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Doximity, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2026, that the company continues to defend itself from several shareholder derivative suits. Six shareholder derivative lawsuits (the “derivative lawsuits”) were also filed. Two are consolidated under the caption In re Doximity, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 5:24-cv-02801 (N.D. Cal.). Two were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Guttman v. Tangney, et al., No. 1:24-cv-01387 (D. Del.) and Wong v. Tangney, et al., No. 1:25-cv-750 (D. Del.). Two were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware with the captions Stern v. Tangney, et al., No. 2025-0661 (Del. Ch.) and Peter v. Tangney, et al., No. 2026-0220-NAC (Del. Ch.). The derivative lawsuits assert claims for, among other things, violations of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste against certain of the Company's directors and officers on a similar factual basis to the securities lawsuit. In addition, two shareholders (Constance McCrea and Michael April) made a demand on the Board to investigate. Following an initial discussion with McCrea's counsel, McCrea agreed to hold the demand in abeyance until the securities lawsuit is resolved, thus requiring no action at this time. The Company entered into a formal deferral agreement with McCrea. Doximity, Inc. operates a digital platform designed for medical professionals, offering networking tools, telehealth solutions and clinical information resources to U.S. physicians and other health care providers. The company leverages technology to streamline communication, collaboration and workflow efficiency across the health care ecosystem. DUKE HEALTH: Settles MyChart Privacy Class Action Suit for $3.74MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former patients and other individuals who logged into the Duke MyChart patient portal or MyDuke Health mobile app at least once between Feb. 18, 2019, and June 17, 2022, may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. The settlement class includes approximately 872,634 individuals. Duke University Health System Inc. agreed to pay $3.74 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it improperly disclosed personal and health-related information through tracking tools on its website. The lawsuit claims these tracking tools, including a third-party pixel, may have shared sensitive data with a vendor when patients accessed Duke Health's online services. Who can file a claim for a MyChart payout? Class members are individuals in the United States whom Duke Health identified as having logged into the Duke MyChart patient portal or MyDuke Health mobile app at least once between Feb. 18, 2019, and June 17, 2022. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print a PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Williams v. Duke University Health System Inc. Settlement Administrator, PO Box 4214, Portland, OR 97208-4214 The claim deadline is Aug. 16, 2026. Required claim information All class members must provide the unique ID from the settlement notice they received. Online claimants must also provide the PIN from the same notice. Payout options -- Electronic payment (only available for online claims) -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $3,743,600 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,235,388 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $30,000 -- Service award to class representative: $7,500 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: July 20, 2026 -- Deadline to submit a claim form: Aug. 16, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Aug. 27, 2026 When is the Duke University Health System privacy settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Duke Health used tracking tools on its website, MyChart portal and MyDuke Health mobile app that may have shared personal and health-related information with a third-party vendor. The plaintiff claimed this practice invaded the privacy of patients and class members. Duke Health denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata share Deadline: August 16, 2026 [GN] DXC TECHNOLOGY: Long Sues Over Non-Exempt Employees' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- DORIS LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company f/k/a Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-01355-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va., May 20, 2026) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant employed hourly, non-exempt employees with a number of job titles, including, but not limited to, Customer Service Representative, Call Center Representatives, Call Center Support Representative, and Support Representative. The Defendant employed its Representatives in brick-and-mortar contact centers and remotely throughout the United States. The Defendant relied heavily on Representatives to field and make calls to its clients' customers and respond and/or troubleshoot its clients' customers' inquiries, requests and complaints, and log information about customer interactions into Defendant's clients' systems. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt remote Customer Service Representative from approximately 2017 through April 2025. DXC is an enterprise technology and innovation company that provides end-to-end solutions for global enterprises and public sector organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 Little River Turnpike, Suite A Annadale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com EDWARD JONES: Black Advisors File Class Suit Over Racial Bias ------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Donachie of Wealth Management reports that Edward Jones is facing a class action lawsuit from six Black advisors and former employees for the firm, claiming company policies put them in a position where they received "less compensation, fewer promotions and are terminated more frequently than their white peers." The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Missouri by former Edward Jones employees Roland Martin, Elwis Johnson, Trevor Edwards, Shawna Knutson, Santoria Texidor and Alonzo Hinton, who are based throughout the country. According to the suit, the alleged discrimination they detail in the suit isn't a "disparate impact case," claiming that "Edward Jones knows that Black (financial advisors) are compensated less than their white peers, but has done little to correct this discrimination." The plaintiffs claim discrimination in the firm's client transfer policy, which most often occurs upon an advisor's retirement or when a senior advisor offloads client assets to a junior advisor to grant them a leg up in building a book of business (while advisors can request to make a specific transfer, the firm leadership oversees and approves the transfers). According to the suit, advisors can, on average, receive "tens of millions of dollars' worth of client accounts" when starting at Edward Jones, and senior advisors can choose which junior advisors receive their transferred assets (under the firm's "GoodKnight" policy). The plaintiff claims this results in a reality where a "predominantly white (financial advisor) workforce transfers their client accounts" to other white advisors with the blessing of a "predominantly white Edward Jones Home Office, which tracks and approves" transfers. The situation is made worse by Edward Jones hiring policies that the plaintiffs claim" explicitly encourage nepotism." The result, they argue, is that Black advisors receive fewer assets, or none at all and the quality of those assets tends to be poorer. "These disparities compound over time, with Black (financial advisors) receiving less compensation and fewer career advancement opportunities than their white peers," the complaint read. "Their core story is common to Black (financial advisors) across the country." Edward Jones faced a similar lawsuit in 2022, in which several advisors claimed the firm's "GoodKnight" program led to opportunities being disproportionately offered to white male advisors at the expense of other employees. Six years later, the suit remains ongoing. In the latest case, the six plaintiffs each detail their challenges in building books of business within Edward Jones (all eventually left the firm), but some detail specific alleged instances of racism. In one case, Roland Martin detailed a meeting with the firm's compliance director, regional leader and three members of the management team regarding his performance. "After going through his existing book of business comprised of primarily Black households, the compliance director stated, 'maybe the type of clients that you're getting aren't ideal for Edward Jones,'" the complaint read. "Plaintiff Martin understood this comment to be racial. Plaintiff Martin resigned from Edward Jones in September 2022 to start his own practice, where his 'type of clients' would be appreciated." An Edward Jones spokesperson said the firm strongly denies the allegations, "which do not reflect our values or how we operate as a firm." "Edward Jones takes its responsibility to promote fairness, respect and inclusion seriously and does not tolerate discrimination or bias in any form," they said. "We intend to defend the matter and remain focused on supporting our associates, serving our clients, and acting in accordance with our purpose and values." [GN] ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Portable Power Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC. et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another Party's material should be sealed. The Plaintiffs move the Court to provisionally seal the Plaintiffs' joint reply in support of class certification, the declaration of Joshua P. Davis in support thereof, and attached exhibits. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IdBbxt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. Alison Deich, Esq. Richard Koffman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. John Bracken, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com adeich@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com jbracken@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com jpollock@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Sarah Grossman-Swenson, Esq. Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Schuman Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another Party's material should be sealed. The Plaintiffs move the Court to provisionally seal the Plaintiffs' joint reply in support of class certification, the declaration of Joshua P. Davis in support thereof, and attached exhibits. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SZ925Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. Alison Deich, Esq. Richard Koffman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. John Bracken, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com adeich@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com jbracken@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com jpollock@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Sarah Grossman-Swenson, Esq. Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law ENOVIX CORPORATION: Securities Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re Enovix Corporation securities litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order staying case pending resolution of Rule 23(f) petition. As discussed at the May 15, 2026 case management conference, the Court stays all further proceedings pending resolution of the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition. The stay shall be lifted upon either: (A) denial of the Petition; or (B) if the Petition is granted, resolution of the plaintiffs' appeal. Within 14 days after the stay is lifted, the parties will submit a joint letter updating the Court with respect to the status of further proceedings in this action. On April 21, 2026, the Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Enovix designs, develops, and manufactures lithium-ion battery cells. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nj5vSd at no extra charge.[CC] EXXON MOBIL: Prevails in Securities Fraud Class Action Jury Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- Compass Lexecon reports that a securities class action matter is filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division entitled Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. In this case, the Plaintiffs and their experts claimed that ExxonMobil and several former executives inflated ExxonMobil's stock by misleading investors regarding ExxonMobil's use of carbon proxy costs to account for the costs of climate change, and by misrepresenting the amount of certain Canadian bitumen reserves and the value of certain Rocky Mountain gas assets. Plaintiffs claimed that ExxonMobil made these misrepresentations in part to avoid a credit downgrade and thus obtain a more favorable rate in a contemporaneous bond issuance. Plaintiffs and their experts further claimed that the alleged truth concealed by these misrepresentations was revealed to the market on seven corrective disclosure dates. Compass Lexecon Senior Consultant Professor Allen Ferrell was retained by ExxonMobil at the class certification stage, where he opined that none of the alleged misrepresentations or alleged corrective disclosures had a price impact on ExxonMobil's stock. Professor Ferrell testified at a class certification hearing on June 7, 2022. On August 21, 2023, Judge Ed Kinkeade of the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas ruled that six of the alleged corrective disclosures should be excluded based on "Dr. Ferrell's analysis of ExxonMobil's stock price" which found "no statistically significant price reaction . . ." The Court also determined that Plaintiffs claims regarding carbon proxy costs would be excluded, in part because "Dr. Ferrell's analysis sufficiently rebut[s] the Basic presumption by showing a lack of price impact, [and] further supports Defendants' assertion that the market did not care about the state attorneys general's investigations into whether ExxonMobil misled investors about its internal use of carbon proxy costs." A three-week trial was later held from April 27–May 14, 2026. At trial, Professor Ferrell testified that ExxonMobil's alleged misrepresentations regarding the Canadian bitumen reserves and Rocky Mountain gas assets did not cause inflation by causing a statistically significant price increase, that there was no connection between the alleged misrepresentations and the alleged corrective disclosures, that Plaintiffs and their experts ignored non-fraud related news that was released at the same time as the alleged corrective disclosures, and that Plaintiffs' and their expert's claims regarding ExxonMobil's bond issuance were also fundamentally flawed. After the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of ExxonMobil. Professor Ferrell was supported by a Compass Lexecon team that included Adel Turki, Clifford Ang, Jonathan Polonsky, Agustina Levy, Ashley Crasto, and Issac Klein. Compass Lexecon worked with ExxonMobil's counsel at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, including Ted Wells, Daniel Kramer, Daniel Toal, Audra Soloway, Amitav Chakraborty, and Emily Miller, and with Scott Thomas at Latham & Watkins LLP. [GN] FREEPORT, NY: Class Cert Response Filing Extended ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Whaley v. The Village of Freeport et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02720 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply: The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended indefinitely. The oral argument formerly scheduled for June 23, 2026 is canceled . The suit alleges violation of Civil Rights Act. The Defendant is a village in the town of Hempstead, in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York state, United States.[CC] FRESH INNOVATIONS: Song Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fresh Innovations California, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Song, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fresh Innovations California, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003435 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Fresh Innovations California, located in Stockton, California, specializes in organic and conventional fresh-cut apple slices, under the brand Prize Slice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com FS KKR CAPITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against FS KKR Capital Corp. ("FS KKR Capital" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSK) on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired FS KKR Capital securities between May 8, 2024 and February 25, 2026 (the "Class Period"). DEADLINE REMINDER: If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than July 6, 2026 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the purported class. If you have losses we encourage you to contact us to learn more about the lead plaintiff process. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. According to the complaint, "on February 25, 2026, after the market closed, the Company announced fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings, revealing net asset value had continued to decline to $20.89, down $1.10 or 5% from prior quarter, and the total fair value of investments fell another $406 million, to $13,009 million." The Company also reported "earnings (loss) per share of negative $0.41, down $1.17 or 153.9% from the prior quarter, and a total net realized and unrealized loss per share of negative $0.89, down $1.08 or 568.421% from the prior quarter." The complaint further states that the Company "acknowledge[d] specific challenges' with additional companies and cut its dividend to $0.48 per share (previously $0.70)." On February 26, 2026, the price of FS KKR Capital stock fell $2.03 per share, or 15.24%, to close at $11.29 per share. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, FS KKR Capital claimed it was establishing an improved portfolio credit profile, and that any nonaccrual issues with legacy investments were being adequately address through restructuring. Further, the complaint alleges that in reality failed to disclose to investors that (1) the Company overstated the effectiveness of its portfolio restructuring efforts for its nonaccrual companies; (2) the Company overstated the valuation of its portfolio investments and/or overstated the effectiveness of the Company's portfolio valuation process; (3) the Company overstated the durability of its quarterly distribution strategy; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHY CONTACT KAPLAN FOX -- Kaplan Fox is a leading national law firm focusing on complex litigation with offices in New York, Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey. With over 50 years of experience in securities litigation, Kaplan Fox offers the professional experience and track record that clients demand. Through prosecuting cases on the federal and state levels, Kaplan Fox has successfully shaped the law through winning many important decisions on behalf of our clients. For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our website at www.kaplanfox.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. If you have any questions about this Notice, your rights, or your interests, please contact: CONTACT: Pamela A. Mayer KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 (646) 315-9003 pmayer@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 772-4704 lking@kaplanfox.com [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Bid to Dismiss, Compel Arbitration in Barron ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Eric Barron, Chelsey Thompson, and Simon Moeller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-5696 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Murphy of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied General Motors LLC's motion to compel arbitration and denied its motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Counts 3, 7, and 10 -- the state lemon law claims -- were dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The remaining claims proceed to discovery. Background In April 2025, Eric Barron and Chelsey Thompson each purchased a new 2025 Chevrolet Traverse from dealerships in Pennsylvania and New York, respectively. Simon Moeller purchased a new 2025 GMC Acadia from a dealership in Kansas City, Missouri, in March 2025. Within weeks of purchase, all three plaintiffs experienced a "Master Brake Defect" — where the master brake cylinder assemblies fail abruptly, leading to the partial or total loss of the ability to engage the vehicles' brake systems. Their vehicles were out of service for 29, 31, and 27 days, respectively. The plaintiffs allege the defect affects a broader range of 2025 models — the Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon, collectively referred to as the "class vehicles." The latent defect is present at the time of sale but does not manifest until weeks or months after. General Motors allegedly knew of the defect before selling the vehicles, having previously issued a service update for the same defect in the 2024 Chevrolet Traverse, yet marketed the class vehicles as "safe, reliable, and suitable for everyday use." The plaintiffs bring thirteen counts including fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, and violations of state consumer protection laws. Motion to Compel Arbitration The court denied General Motors's motion to compel Barron and Thompson to arbitrate their claims. General Motors, as a non-signatory to the dealership arbitration agreements, argued it was entitled to enforce those agreements. The court found that neither agreement evinced an intent to be bound to arbitrate with General Motors. Barron's agreement specified that his dealership is not the Manufacturer's agent, and Thompson's agreement defined "We" and "Us" as referring solely to the selling dealership. The court concluded that since there is no agreement to arbitrate between the parties, General Motors has no right to compel it. The court also rejected General Motors's equitable estoppel argument. Courts applying equitable estoppel in favor of a non-signatory have tended to require that the non-signatory have some sort of corporate relationship to a signatory party, such as subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents. General Motors did not qualify. Furthermore, much of General Motors's alleged conduct preceded the arbitration agreements, specifically its pre-sale knowledge of the master brake defect and marketing of the vehicles as safe and reliable. Motion to Dismiss The court denied General Motors's motion to dismiss on all remaining counts. First, the plaintiffs had Article III standing, as the complaint alleged that the defect caused them to pay more for vehicles that were worth less at the time of sale. Second, the fraud and consumer protection claims satisfied both Rule 8 and Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, as the complaint alleged the who, what, when, where, and how required. Third, the warranty claims were adequately pleaded; whether the vehicles' period of unavailability constituted an unreasonable repair time, and whether the defect was one of design or materials and workmanship, were questions reserved for discovery. Fourth, the unjust enrichment claim was permitted to proceed in the alternative, as the plaintiffs alleged they overpaid for their vehicles and would not have purchased them had they known of the defect. The court reserved its ruling on the economic loss doctrine as applied to the fraudulent concealment claims under Pennsylvania and Missouri law for summary judgment. Counts 3, 7, and 10 are dismissed as withdrawn. The remaining counts proceed to discovery. A copy of the Court's Memorandum And Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kXlWys from PacerMonitor.com GLOBE LIFE: Miami General Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBE LIFE INC. f/k/a TORCHMARK CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00376-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (a) certifying a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3); (b) appointing KBC and BRRS as Class Representatives; and (c) appointing Motley Rice and Robbins Geller as Class Counsel. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks certification of a Class defined as: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Globe Life from May 8, 2019 through April 10, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period")." Excluded from the Class are the Individual Defendants and their immediate families, the officers and directors of the Company at all relevant times, members of their immediate families, and Defendants’ legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. On Oct. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, alleging that the Defendants violated sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(a)-(c). On Sept. 29, 2025, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in full, and the Action proceeded to discovery. Globe Life is an insurance holding company that distributes life and supplemental health insurance products through its network of subsidiary agencies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRTBSX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Norton, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Vanessa A. Davis, Esq. Marie Celeste Anderson, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: bnorton@motleyrice.com jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com glevin@motleyrice.com vdavis@motleyrice.com mcanderson@motleyrice.com - and - Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Robert R. Henssler, Esq. Laura Andracchio, Esq. Megan M. Sonney, Esq. Olivia A. Rambo, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com landracchio@rgrdlaw.com msonney@rgrdlaw.com orambo@rgrdlaw.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com GNC HOLDINGS LLC: Bradley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GNC Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Candice Ann Bradley, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. GNC Holdings LLC, Case No. 26STCV14724 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." GNC Holdings, LLC -- https://www.gnc.com/ -- is an American multinational retail and nutritional manufacturing company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com GRAYL INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Youngren Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grayl Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05953 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate website, https://grayl.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view water-filtration and purification bottles and travel accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law GROOME INDUSTRIAL: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Groome Industrial Service Group, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Hart, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Groome Industrial Service Group, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003420 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is not stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Groome Industrial Service Group -- https://www.groomeindustrial.com/ -- is a specialized industrial services company committed to delivering safe, reliable, and results-driven maintenance solutions across a wide range of industries.[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 GRUNS NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Most Claims in Gummies Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Patricia Cavallaro-Kearins and Jenifer Mestaz-Heiser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gruns Nutrition Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-4998 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (FAC). Counts I and II were dismissed without prejudice, limited to advertisements targeting GLP-1 users, and Counts III through VII were dismissed with prejudice. Gruns Nutrition Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells Superfood Greens Gummies for Adults and Gruns Cubs for Kids. Defendant marketed the Gummies as a comprehensive and complete solution for daily nutrition, claiming they provide 100% of kids' daily nutrition, all-in-one support for GLP-1 users, and act as a replacement for essential nutrients. The Adult Gummies (Low Sugar) retailed at $79.99 or higher, and the Sugar-Free version at $87.99. Plaintiff Cavallaro-Kearins, a New York resident, purchased Gruns Adults and Gruns Kids in December 2024 and subscribed to regular purchases of Gruns Kids beginning January 18, 2025, relying on Defendant's representations. Plaintiff Mestaz-Heiser, a California resident, purchased Gruns Adults on March 17, 2025, and again in April and May 2025, after viewing an Instagram advertisement directing her to the Gruns website. Plaintiffs initiated the case by complaint on June 13, 2025. After Plaintiffs filed the FAC on September 12, 2025, Defendant moved to dismiss on October 10, 2025. Plaintiffs brought claims under New York General Business Law (GBL) Sections 349 and 350; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; the California Unfair Competition Law; California's False Advertising Law; and for common law fraud and unjust enrichment. The Court found that the statement "Comprehensive Nutrition" on the product packaging constituted non-actionable puffery. The Court held it entirely implausible that a .7-ounce packet of gummy bear supplements advertised as a dietary supplement could replace all other foods. The very notion of a supplement, the Court stated, is that it adds to what is being consumed and does not replace it. According to the Court,the term "comprehensive nutrition," if not taken literally, is ambiguous, and that a reasonable consumer would naturally read the label as a whole. The back label discloses that the Gummies contain only 5% of the daily value of carbohydrates, 21% of dietary fiber, and 25% of certain minerals, with no protein, fat, calcium, or omega-3 fatty acids at all. The Court held that the back label provides clarifying language that definitively dispels any arguable ambiguity on the front. Plaintiffs' claims based on website statements, social media, and email communications were also dismissed, as the Court found no false or misleading statement among them. The Court identified a subset of claims concerning advertisements targeting GLP-1 users as potentially misleading, including advertisements stating that the Gummies were packed with 100% of essential nutrients for those on Ozempic. However, the Court found Plaintiff Cavallaro-Kearins' allegation that the formulation was not tailored to the specific needs of GLP-1 users to be conclusory, failing to identify what specific nutritional gaps GLP-1 medications create. The GBL claims as to GLP-1 advertising were dismissed without prejudice. Because Mestaz-Heiser was not alleged to be a GLP-1 user, the California law claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Court dismissed the common law fraud claim with prejudice, finding that sparse allegations of false representations and a desire to increase profits were insufficient to establish scienter. The unjust enrichment claim was likewise dismissed with prejudice as duplicative of the statutory claims, arising from the same facts and alleging no distinct damages. The motion to dismiss was granted in full. Any amended complaint addressing the GLP-1 advertising claims must be filed within 20 days of the date of the Opinion and Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uMLVNK from PacerMonitor.com HD GENERAL: Carter Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- JARRID CARTER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HD GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, JUSTIN TURNER, BLAKE LIMBAUGH, MICHAEL LIMBAUGH, and JOHNNY FAIN, Case No. 2:26-cv-00164-RWS (N.D. Ga., May 21, 2026) is a collective action for unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and other similarly situated employees regular wages and overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per week. The proposed class of Plaintiffs consists of all employees similarly situated to Named Plaintiff Carter, with a proposed definition as follows: "All persons who perform(ed) general labor work for Defendants as non-exempt day rate employees, including, but not limited to, all laborers, supervisors, and/or other similar job titles or designations out of any office in the United States at any time within three (3) years of filing this Collective Complaint or who are currently employed by Defendants." Further, Mr. Carter brings a race discrimination claim based on his discriminatory termination in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Mr. Carter is an African American male. In or around February 2026, Plaintiff got into a car accident with another employee of the Defendants. HD General offers concrete work, site prep, pole barns, framing, and mobile welding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Daniel Cole, Esq. Carter A. Augustine, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com caugustine@pcwlawfirm.com HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Allowed Leave to Seal Class Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and the MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to seal exhibits accompanying their reply to motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Health Care is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oe8LA0 at no extra charge.[CC] HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Commercial Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carol Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HILLSDALE COLLEGE, Case No. 2:26-cv-01588 (W.D. Wash., May 11, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), which prohibits companies from sending commercial text messages to Washington residents without consent. The Plaintiff received multiple commercial text messages from the Defendant in July and December of 2024. The Defendant's unsolicited spam was intrusive and annoying to the Plaintiff. To hold the Defendant accountable for its illegal practices, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a putative class of Washington residents similarly situated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received multiple commercial text messages from Hillsdale in July and December of 2024. Hillsdale College is a private college located in Hillsdale, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Alvord, Esq. Reid Hudson, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 450 Alaskan Way S Suite 200 #1823 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (385) 440-4127 Email: thomas@thehqfirm.com reid.hudson@thehqfirm.com HOLLEY PERFORMANCE: Nowlin Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Nowlin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Holley Performance Products, Inc., Case No. 26CV03547 was removed from the Mendocino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03950-RMI to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Holley Performance Products -- https://www.holley.com/ -- is an automotive performance company based in Bowling Green, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. Isabel Rose O. Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com mark@potterhandy.com isabelm@potterhandy.com The Defendant is represented by: Megan Akemi Suehiro, Esq. Jesse C. Gonzalez, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 612-2500 Fax: (213) 612-2501 Email: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com jesse.gonzalez@morganlewis.com HOUSTON EYE: 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 possible Houston Eye Associates data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who may have had their information exposed in the potential cyberattack, including current and former patients and employees of Houston Eye Associates. Possible Houston Eye Associates Security Incident: What Happened? Emerging reports suggest that Houston Eye Associates has experienced a data breach. As indicated by a May 14, 2026 post on Ransomware.Live, threat actor Cmdorganization has taken credit for the Houston Eye Associates cyberattack, which reportedly occurred on the same day. The healthcare provider, serving 18 locations in Greater Houston, has yet to confirm the possible Houston Eye Associates data breach. What You Can Do After the Reported Houston Eye Associates Data Breach If your information may have been exposed in the possible Houston Eye Associates 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 Houston Eye Associates 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] HUME HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Defer Summary Judgment Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action captioned as Sheri Butler Brockington, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hume Health, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-161-KAC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Katherine A. Crytzer of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Plaintiff's alternative request to deny or defer Defendant's motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(d) as Defendant had already provided interrogatory responses, documents, and sworn declarations explaining how it received Plaintiff's phone number, and because Plaintiff failed to clearly explain how additional discovery would shed further light on the issues. Plaintiff filed this Telephone Consumer Protection Act putative class action alleging Defendant made telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their written consent. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on October 14, before discovery closed, based on Plaintiff's purported consent to receive text messages. In support, Defendant submitted declarations describing the precise steps that Plaintiff took, upon visiting Defendant's website on January 22, 2025, to provide her consent to receiving text messages, along with the precise language that was in effect at the time Plaintiff provided such consent. In opposition, Plaintiff asked the Court to deny the motion as premature under Rule 56(d) because she had not yet had the opportunity to take the discovery necessary to confirm how her phone number was obtained as a product of lead fraud. Plaintiff declared she visited Defendant's website but claimed she never gave Defendant permission verbally, in writing, or electronically, to send her telemarketing of any kind. The Court found that Plaintiff did not identify any specific depositions or documents she needed, nor did she explain her lead-fraud theory and how any depositions or documents would support it. A party opposing summary judgment possesses no absolute right to additional discovery. Rather, she must indicate to the Court the need for discovery, what material facts she hopes to uncover, and why she has not previously discovered the information. A copy of the court's Memorandum and Opinion dated 11th May, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JIWcyG from PacerMonitor.com ILLUMIFIN CORPORATION: Reed Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against illumifin Corporation. The case is styled as Randy Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. illumifin Corporation, Case No. 0:26-cv-02549-JWB-DJF (D. Minn., May 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud. Illumifin -- https://www.illumifin.com/ -- is an insurance technology company and third-party administrator that designs, develops and delivers tech-enabled insurance policy management software and services that provide unrivaled value for insurers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Demaris, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: madison.demaris@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com INOTIV INC: Settlement in Cybersecurity Suit for Court OK --------------------------------------------------------- Inotiv, Inc. disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2026, that the Cybersecurity class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the Marion Superior Court, Marion County, Indiana. Three putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (the "Federal Actions") arising out of a cybersecurity incident experienced in August 2025 (the "Cybersecurity Incident"), in which a threat actor gained unauthorized access to the Company's systems and may have acquired certain data. As previously disclosed, the Company had been a party to the Federal Actions. On March 14, 2026, the Federal Actions were dismissed without prejudice. On the same date, the same plaintiffs who filed the Federal Actions commenced a putative class action in the Marion Superior Court, Marion County, Indiana, under the caption Doyal, et al. v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 49D01-2604-CE-020713 (the "Indiana State Court Action"), on behalf of the same class of persons identified in the Federal Actions. The Indiana State Court Action generally alleges the same claims as the Federal Actions, namely that the plaintiffs and the proposed class members were harmed when their personally identifying information and protected health information were impacted by the Cybersecurity Incident. In addition, the Company disclosed that on May 13, 2026, it entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release that resolves the claims of the plaintiffs and the proposed class in the Indiana State Court Action (the "Proposed Cybersecurity Incident Settlement"). The Company stated that it agreed to the Proposed Cybersecurity Incident Settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden and expense of protracted litigation, and that the settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company, which denies any wrongdoing. The Proposed Cybersecurity Incident Settlement remains subject to court approval, and there can be no assurance that the court will approve it. Under the terms of the Proposed Cybersecurity Incident Settlement, members of the putative class, expected to consist of all persons who received a notice from the Company following the Cybersecurity Incident stating that their personally identifiable information may have been compromised, may submit claims for compensation for lost time attributable to the Cybersecurity Incident, recovery of ordinary expenses incurred in connection with the incident, recovery of extraordinary losses incurred in connection with the incident, or, in lieu of those settlement benefits, an alternative cash payment. These class benefits are subject to specified monetary caps and verification by a third-party settlement administrator, and class members may also elect to claim two years of credit monitoring services. Plaintiffs will seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses not to exceed $275,000, as well as service award payments for the class representatives. If approved by the court, the Proposed Cybersecurity Incident Settlement will fully resolve the Indiana State Court Action. The Company expects that all payments required under the Proposed Cybersecurity Incident Settlement will be fully funded by available insurance. Inotiv, Inc. is a contract research organization and related services company providing nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services to pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device and other life sciences clients. The company focuses on helping customers discover and develop new drugs and medical products through preclinical testing and research support. INSTRUCTURE INC: Doe Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00401 (D. Utah, May 9, 2026), is brought alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Canvas obtains information on its users, including names, emails, locations, video recordings, and student ID numbers. Canvas also collects data on student performance and records student messages. Instructure failed to protect information belonging to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Instructure failed to adopt reasonable security procedures and practices that would user information private, including information belonging to minors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a student who was required to use Canvas by his school. Instructure is an educational technology company that sells educational software products, including learning management software, to educational institutions including Canvas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Gunter, Esq. HOWARD LEWIS & PETERSEN, PC 120 Eeast, 300 North Provo, UT 84606 Phone: 801.373.6345 Email: Jacob@provolawyers.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: 310.474.9111 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Failed to Keep Private Info Secure, Singh Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KIRAN SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00385 (D. Utah, May 7, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members directly or indirectly provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides. As a result of collecting and storing the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members for its own financial benefit, Defendant had a continuous duty to adopt and employ reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Private Information from disclosure to third parties. The Defendant, however, failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The ransom group, ShinyHunters, claims that it gained access to Defendant's network and acquired "275 million individuals data ranging from students, teachers, and other staff containing PII". The Plaintiff learned of the Data Breach after receiving an email from her school's Office of Information Technology on May 6, 2026, informing her of the cybersecurity incident involving Defendant and warning her that her Private Information may have been exposed. As a direct and traceable result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered injury and damages after her Private Information was compromised and stolen in the Data Breach, including, but not limited to: (a) lost time and money related to monitoring her accounts and credit reports for fraudulent activity; (b) loss of privacy due to her Private Information being accessed and stolen by cybercriminals; (c) loss of the benefit of the bargain because Defendant did not adequately protect her Private Information; (d) emotional distress because identity thieves now possess her Private Information; (e) imminent and impending injury arising from the increased risk of fraud and identity theft now that her Private Information has been stolen and likely published on the dark web; (f) diminution in the value of her Private Information, a form of intangible property that Defendant obtained from Plaintiff and (g) other economic and non-economic harm. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Kiran Singh, a Data Breach victim, is a citizen and resident of Modesto, California. Defendant Instructure, Inc. is a Utah-based learning management system that provides services to thousands of schools and millions of students across the country.[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 - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq, SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Nelson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDI NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-396 (D. Utah, May 8, 2026) is a class action arising 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. The Defendant 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. Defendant lost control over that information when an unauthorized actor infiltrated Canvas and obtained users' personal information on April 29, 2026. Based on Defendant's investigation so far, the data taken in the April 29 incident included personal information of users at affected organizations such as 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. The unauthorized actor made changes to pages that appeared when some students and teachers were logged in through Canvas. 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, asserts the complaint. On May 5, 2026, Defendant notified impacted organizations of the Data Breach. On May 8, 2026, Plaintiff received an email from the University of Kentucky advising that Canvas was back online after Defendant identified unauthorized activity in Canvas. The email further advised that immediate steps had been taken to contain the activity and directed recipients to Defendant's incident FAQ to understand what happened and what to do next. The Data Breach affected educational institutions across the country and disrupted access to Canvas for students and educators. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members face a continuing risk of phishing, social engineering, identity theft, privacy invasion, and misuse of their personal information and private Canvas communications, adds the complaint. 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 Brandi Nelson is a student and/or alumna of the University of Kentucky and is a Data Breach victim.[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 - 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: Sabre Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Systems ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS SABRE and ETHAN FABER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00391-TS (D. Utah, May 8, 2026) arises from the Defendant's inadequate data security practices that led to the occurrence of a data breach. As part of its operations, Instructure collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personally identifying information from its users. On or before May 4, 2026, cybercriminals attacked Defendant's systems and successfully stole vast quantities of sensitive private information maintained by Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all those similarly situated to seek relief for, inter alia, the consequences of Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard their private information; Defendant's failure to reasonably provide a notification to Plaintiff and Class members that their private information had been compromised; and for Defendant's failure to inform Plaintiff and Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their private information. Instructure, Inc. is a company that provides online learning management products to educational institutions and is used by millions of educational staff and students in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. Lasalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com INTELLILOAN INC: Weston Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intelliloan, Inc. The case is styled as Malcom Weston, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Intelliloan, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2026-0003476 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice." Intelliloan -- https://intelliloan.com/ -- specializes in home mortgage solutions, offering services such as refinancing, home equity loans, and guidance for first-time home buyers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com IRON WALL SECURITY: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iron Wall Security, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Candisha D. Davis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Iron Wall Security, Inc., Iron Wall Security Services, Case No. 26STCV14971 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Iron Wall -- https://www.ironwallsecurity.net/ -- is a premium Private Security Provider for corporations and private individuals in California and overseas.[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 ITALIANTOUCH USA: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Italiantouch USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05357 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against Italiantouch for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://tods.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. On March 27, 2026, while searching online for leather accessories, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's website. The Plaintiff reviewed customer feedback from Illinois residents and explored the website further. During her visit, she became interested in the T Timeless Shopping Bag in Leather Medium and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website with the intention of completing the order, she encountered several accessibility barriers. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Italiantouch's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Italiantouch USA, Inc. operates the website that offers footwear and accessories, such as loafers, sneakers, boots, as well as bags, belts, wallets, and sunglasses.[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 JACK ERWIN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jack Erwin, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05955 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate website, https://www.jackerwin.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The website is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view handcrafted shoes and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law JET AVIATION FLIGHT: Rogers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc. The case is styled as George Rogers, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc., Case No. 26STCV14722 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Jet Aviation --- https://www.jetaviation.com/ -- is a Basel-based provider of business aviation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com KALSHI INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Illegal Gambling Operations --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Adams, writing for AboutLaws, reports that a Kentucky man has filed a class action lawsuit against Kalshi, alleging that the online prediction market is operating as an illegal gambling platform that allows users to wager real money on sports, elections and virtually any other major event. The complaint was brought by Donovan Roberts in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on May 11. It names Kalshi Inc., Kalshiex LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, Kalshi Trading LLC, Susquehanna International Group LLP and Susquehanna Government Products LLLP as defendants. Roberts is seeking to recover both his own Kalshi betting losses, as well as to pursue damages for other Kentucky residents who made similar trades on the platform during the past five years. The proposed Kalshi class action lawsuit invokes a Kentucky gambling loss recovery statute, which allows individuals to sue to recoup money lost through alleged illegal wagering operations. Kalshi operates what it calls a "prediction market," where users buy and sell "event contracts" tied to the outcome of future events. In this capacity, the platform allows "bets" on sports contests, elections, weather events, interest rates and other topics, framing the transactions as financial contracts rather than traditional wagers. Roberts's lawsuit argues that Kalshi's "prediction market" label is merely a distinction without a difference. He claims the platform is gambling by another name, offering untaxed and unregulated betting to Kentucky residents without a state sports wagering license or compliance with Kentucky gambling laws. Online Gambling Addiction Concerns Roberts's case shows how online gambling has expanded well beyond traditional sportsbooks since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision paved the way for states to legalize mobile sports betting. Sports betting platforms such as DraftKings and FanDuel have already introduced millions of younger adults to the ability to place bets from their smartphones at any time of day. In recent months, that rapid expansion has helped fuel a wave of sports betting addiction lawsuits alleging the companies promoted addictive gambling behavior and failed to protect vulnerable users. Kalshi and other prediction market platforms are now expanding that model, allowing users to wager not only on athletic contests but on elections, economic indicators and countless other real-world events. [GN] KENTUCKY: KSU Students, Alumni File Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA WIGGINTON; GIONNIE WEBSTER; LEAH THOMPSON; ESSENCE KIMBROUGH; KYLAN RICHARD, II; TAKEO JASPER; CHEYENNE RUSHING; KRYSTAL JACKSON; SABRINA TIGGS; LAVERNE BOTTS; KIMBERLY REED THOMPSON; JOHNATHAN M. MORRIS; individually and on behalf of all similarly situated KSU current students, alumni, prospective students, admitted students, and other classes and subclasses described herein, Plaintiffs v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; KENTUCKY COUNCIL ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; ANDY BESHEAR; RUSSELL COLEMAN; AARON THOMPSON; MADISON SILVERT; HOLLY M. JOHNSON; THOMAS B. MILLER; KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS; TAMMI DUKES; KOFFI C. AKAKPO, Ph.D.; and DOES 1-10, all in their official capacities as applicable, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00035-GFVT (E.D. Ky., May 11, 2026) is a civil-rights, higher-education desegregation, and land-grant/equity class action challenging the Commonwealth of Kentucky's continuing treatment of Kentucky State University, Kentucky's 1890 land-grant university and only public Historically Black College or University ("HBCU"), in comparison with the University of Kentucky, Kentucky's 1862 land-grant university. The complaint relates that at the center of this case is a straightforward constitutional and civil Rights principle: the Commonwealth may not preserve the advantages of a historically segregated land-grant system by underfunding the institution it created for Black students and then, after formal federal notice of that underfunding, impose emergency restructuring on that institution alone. The Plaintiffs bring this action to preserve the status quo, prevent irreversible injury to KSU students, alumni, prospective applicants, admitted students, faculty, academic personnel, and the communities served by KSU, and to require the Commonwealth and responsible officials to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal land-grant obligations that protect KSU as Kentucky's 1890 land-grant institution and only public HBCU. According to the complaint, for generations, Kentucky maintained a dual land-grant structure rooted in de jure segregation: UK as the 1862 institution serving Caucasian students, and KSU as the 1890 institution established because Black students were excluded from the Commonwealth's Caucasian land-grant system. The constitutional question today is not whether Kentucky now uses race-neutral terminology. The question is whether current policies traceable to the former dual system continue to burden KSU and its students, and whether those policies can practicably be eliminated or remedied. On January 15, 1981, "the Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") notified the Commonwealth that it was operating a racially segregated system of higher education in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." The OCR formally found that Kentucky had "failed to eliminate the vestiges of its former de jure segregation," and the racially-motivated dual system of public higher education in violation of Title VI. The complaint does not ask the Court to manage KSU day-to-day or to substitute judicial preferences for ordinary academic judgment. It asks the Court to prevent the Commonwealth from irreversibly narrowing, restructuring, and burdening the State's historically Black land-grant small liberal arts institution before the Commonwealth remedies a federally-identified funding disparity and before the Court can adjudicate the civil rights claims on a developed record, the complaint adds. The Plaintiffs bring this action under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, federal land-grant statutes as predicates for declaratory and equitable relief, the Kentucky Constitution, the Kentucky Declaratory Judgment Act, and related equitable principles. Disparate impact, effect, historical background, comparator treatment, procedural sequence, federal notice, and post-notice conduct are pleaded as evidence of intentional discrimination, deliberate indifference, retaliatory/adverse action, and traceability. Plaintiffs are current students and alumni of Kentucky State University. The official-capacity Defendants are sued solely for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent implementation of unconstitutional or unlawful state policies and to require lawful compliance with federal and state obligations. Doe Defendants are other unknown state, agency, university, or implementation officials whose identities may become known in discovery and who are responsible for enforcing or implementing the challenged policies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Morris, Esq. Tyler J. Morris, Esq. Sharon K. Morris, Esq. MORRIS & MORRIS, P.S.C. 217 North Upper Street Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 281-6981 Facsimile: (859) 233-7876 KITCHENSYNC LLC: Kidney Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN KIDNEY, JESSICA CLAYCOMB, DENISE CRISCELLA, and CAITLYN MACNEILL-FISCHER, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. KITCHENSYNC, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03093 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026) is a class action for Defendant's violations of: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), (ii) the FLSA's requirement to make prompt payment of wages, (iii) the overtime provisions of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and (iv) the prohibition against unlawful deductions under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Despite managing financial and human resources operations for dozens of businesses, the Defendant allegedly systematically violated federal and state employment laws through a comprehensive pattern of wage and benefits misconduct affecting its entire workforce. Accordingly, the Defendant misclassified many of its employees, including Plaintiffs Jessica Claycomb and Denise Criscella, while forcing them to work excessive hours beyond forty each week and failing to pay them any overtime compensation for those hours. KitchenSync operates as a back-of-house services agency for restaurants, providing human resources, payroll, bookkeeping, and accounts payable services to approximately 80-100 restaurant clients. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 2000 Deer Park Ave. Deer Park, NY 11729 Telephone: (212) 939-7231 Facsimile: (212) 531-6129 KROGER CO: Henderson FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derris Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kroger, Co. doing business as: King Scoopers and City Market, Case No. 1:26-cv-00779 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00459-JPH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Kroger Co. -- https://www.thekrogerco.com/ -- is an American retail corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGA, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616-4000 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: Mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Andrew R Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA 600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 318-0268 Fax: (954) 333-3515 Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Jacob Maxwell Rubinstein, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 707 17th Street, Suite 3100 Denver, CO 80202-3400 Phone: (720) 479-3872 Fax: (720) 539-7885 Email: jrubinstein@cozen.com - and - Mark A. Knueve, Esq. Robert A. Harris, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 464-6387 Fax: (614) 464-6387 Email: maknueve@vorys.com raharris@vorys.com LAGORIO BROTHERS INC: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lagorio Brothers, Inc. The case is styled as Salvador Pizano Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lagorio Brothers, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003407 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Lagorio Brothers Inc. -- https://www.lagorio.com/ -- is a family-owned business based in Linden, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com LAPID YESHIVA: Ohana Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------- Sara S. Ohana, individually and on behalf of court file no.: all other persons similarly situated v. LAPID YESHIVA, INC. d/b/a TAL ACADEMY, RABBI ARYEH DACHS, SARA TAIB, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No. 1:26-cv-02789 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that they are: entitled to unpaid wages from Defendants for work performed for which they did not receive the full compensation promised and earned, as required by law; and entitled to liquidated damages. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure and refusal to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of her promised compensation, the Plaintiff has been deprived of wages rightfully owed to her for work already performed and for the agreed deferred portion of her compensation, in an amount of not less than $4,861.13 in unpaid straight-time wages (comprising $4,166.68 for the 2 entirely unpaid pay periods plus $694.45 in aggregate shortages across 3 short-paid bi-weekly checks), exclusive of liquidated and statutory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an educational professional. LAPID YESHIVA, INC. d/b/a TAL ACADEMY is a New York domestic corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mikhail Usher, Esq. USHER LAW GROUP, P.C. 1600 Sheepshead Bay Road, Suite 203 Brooklyn, NY 11235 Phone: (718) 484-7510 Fax: (718) 865-8566 Email: Musheresq@gmail.com LARROUDE INC: Class Cert. Filing in Bashirova Due March 23, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMIN BASHIROVA, v. LARROUDE INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06313-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Seeborg entered a case management scheduling order as follows: 1. The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be Aug. 7, 2026. 2. On or before March 23, 2027, all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties. 3. On or before Nov. 3, 2026, parties will provide initial expert disclosures and reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). 4. On or before March 23, 2027, the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification. On or before April 20, 2027, the Defendant will file its opposition to class certification. On or before May 11, 2027, the Plaintiff will file any reply, if any, to the defendant's opposition. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on June 10, 2027, at 1:30 PM. The Defendant offers shoes, handbags, clothing, and other items. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f8GQA8 at no extra charge.[CC] LEE UNIVERSITY: Court OKs $1.75MM Data Breach Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Michael Harris, Christopher Vaught, Caleb Nabors, Katelyn Butler, Brittany Kubba, and Dennis Goodine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lee University, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00125-CLC-MJD (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Curtis L. Collier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a Rule 23 class action settlement agreement and conditionally certified the settlement class. This action stems from a data breach that occurred on March 22, 2024, when an unknown actor gained access to Defendant's systems and accessed the private information of 136,928 individuals, including students, faculty, and staff. In April 2024, ransomware gang Medusa claimed responsibility for the data breach and demanded one million dollars in ransom. Defendant began contacting those individuals whose information was compromised on March 25, 2025. On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff Michael Harris filed a class action complaint. Six related putative class action suits followed, arising out of the same data breach, and the cases were consolidated. On August 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint asserting claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and declaratory/injunctive relief. On November 14, 2025, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement. The settlement agreement defines the class as all persons whose private information was potentially compromised in the data breach, including all individuals to whom Defendant sent an individual notification letter. It provides for a $1,750,000 settlement fund. Following the payment of costs and fees, class members may seek: (a) credit monitoring; (b) reimbursement of documented expenses and losses up to $5,000; and (c) a pro rata cash payment. The Court found that preliminary approval was warranted under Rule 23(e)(2). Analyzing the four required factors, the Court found all satisfied. On adequate representation and arm's length negotiation, the Court found that class counsel possess significant experience leading the prosecution of complex class action matters, including hundreds of data breach class actions all over the country, and that the agreement was the result of vigorous arm's length negotiations with no collusion or fraud. On adequacy of relief, the Court found the costs, risks, and delay of trial favor settlement, noting that data breach litigation is inherently complex and that the amount of data expert analysis and testimony needed to bring the action to trial would increase costs significantly. The Court found the proposed attorney fees award of up to $583,333.33 -- one-third of the settlement fund -- within the range of fees often awarded in common fund cases, both nationwide and in the Sixth Circuit. On equitable treatment, all class members are eligible to file claims for pro rata cash payments and credit monitoring, and those with documented losses may submit claims up to $5,000. The Court noted, however, that the proposed $2,500 service award to each named plaintiff -- twenty-five times the estimated pro rata cash payment of $100 -- would require substantial justification and would be scrutinized at the final approval stage. The Court found the settlement class satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). On numerosity, the class of approximately 136,928 individuals makes joinder difficult and inconvenient. On commonality and typicality, because Plaintiffs' claims all arise from the same data breach incident and the same legal theory, resolving the named plaintiffs' claims would resolve the claims of the entire class. On adequacy, the named Plaintiffs share common interests with unnamed class members, and class counsel vigorously prosecuted the interests of the class. The Court further found the class action mechanism superior to individual litigation, noting that potential damages are small for each person individually relative to the cost of litigation. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and: (1) preliminarily approved the proposed settlement agreement; (2) appointed Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator; (3) approved the proposed settlement notice plan and opt-out/objection procedures; (4) appointed Leanna Loginov and J. Gerard Stranch as class counsel; (5) appointed Plaintiffs as class representatives; and (6) stayed the case. A final approval and fairness hearing was scheduled for Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the federal courthouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 18, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fc1np7 from PacerMonitor.com LEUCADIA ASSET MANAGEMENT: Dennis Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leucadia Asset Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ashton K. Dennis and Ashley E. Dennis, as Co-Trustees of the Dennis Revocable Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leucadia Asset Management LLC, et al, Case No. 652713/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May 7, 2026). Leucadia Asset Management (“LAM”) -- https://leucadia-am.com/ -- is a diversified alternative asset management platform.[BN] LLOYD'S LONDON: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Continued July 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINCOLN ADVENTURES LLC et al v. THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON MEMBERS OF SYNDICATES et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00235 (D.N.J., Filed Jan. 14, 2008), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order on Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Oral argument on the motions shall proceed on July 16, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. The Defendant is an insurance and reinsurance market located in London, England.[CC] LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Grimes Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashley Grimes, Cameron Diegle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Case No. 26CV008109 was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01760-JDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 974-1740 Email: mconnett@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Brianna R. Howard, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: (424) 204-4400 Email: howardbr@ballardspahr.com MADEWELL INC: Gupta Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Poonam Gupta, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Madewell Inc., Case No. CGC-26-635252 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-04247 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Madewell Inc. -- https://www.madewell.com/ -- provides women's apparel and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Caroline E. Lee, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Phone: (415) 836-2514 Fax: (415) 659-7314 Email: Caroline.lee@us.dlapiper.com MANO DELIVERY CORP: De La Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mano Delivery Corp., et al. The case is styled as Pablo De La Cruz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mano Delivery Corp., a/k/a Amazon Trucking & Distribution, Partners Personnel Management Services LLC, Case No. 26STCV14847 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Mano Delivery Corp. also known as Amazon Trucking & Distribution in Rancho Dominguez, California -- https://www.amazontruckinganddistribution.com/ -- provide comprehensive drayage services to the areas within Los Angeles and Long Beach.[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 McLANE FOODSERVICE: Lyons Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Donald Lyons, Jose Rea, Israel Medina, Israel Jimenez, Jr., and Robert Lewis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Jordan Orozco Madero and Esteban Orosco on behalf of themselves all others similarly situated v. McLANE FOODSERVICE, INC., a Texas corporation, McLANE SUNEAST, INC., a Texas corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV05699 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05040. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint alleges 6 purported causes of action for: failure to pay all wages earned; failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse for work expenses; waiting time penalties; violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Phone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com MEDITERRANEAN DELIGHT: Wood Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mediterranean Delight, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05876 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://terradelyssa.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law MEDTRONIC INC: Loughry Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medtronic, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Loughry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02555-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., May 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud. Medtronic, Inc. -- https://www.medtronic.com/en-us/index.html -- manufactures and sells device-based medical therapies worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Madison Demaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com MEDTRONIC INC: Williams Files Suit in D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medtronic, Inc. The case is styled as Celeste Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02555-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., May 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Medtronic, Inc. -- https://www.medtronic.com/en-us/index.html -- manufactures and sells device-based medical therapies worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com MEMPHIS, TN: Court Recommends Denial of Kiner Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD KINER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated MLGW ratepayers, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER DIVISION (MLGW), JOHN DOES (1-10), Case No. 2:25-cv-02987-BCL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Tu M. Pham recommends that the motion for class certification be denied. Mr. Kiner, as a pro se litigant, cannot appear on behalf of anyone but himself, much less on behalf of a class. And even if Mr. Kiner could legally appear pro se on behalf of the class, the Sixth Circuit 'consider[s] the competence of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others,' the Court says. Mr. Kiner filed his pro se complaint on Oct. 29, 2025. The complaint, which is 36 pages long and attaches over 100 pages of exhibits, seeks to bring a class action on behalf of: "All Memphis and Shelby County ratepayers and taxpayers who have suffered financial injury from the Defendants' ongoing fraudulent and unconstitutional conduct, including systematic overbilling, misuse of public funds, and concealment of fiscal irregularities within the City of Memphis and its division, Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW)." Memphis is a city on the Mississippi River in southwest Tennessee. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0grPrE at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Evans Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Harold Evans, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00524 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03741-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: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 402-1100 Fax: (866) 327-4000 Email: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MORNINGSTAR CAFE: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- BERNARDO MEJIA MORALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORNINGSTAR CAFE INC. (d/b/a MORNINGSTAR CAFE), and GEORGE VAVILIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03846 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Plaintiff Mejia regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Mejia appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Mejia the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked over 10 hours per day. The Plaintiff worked as a cook at Defendant's restaurant from approximately 2009 until April 4, 2026. Morningstar Cafe Inc. is a restaurant owned by George Vavilis located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com NATURAL ALTERNATIVES: Tentative Deal Reached in Class, PAGA Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natural Alternatives International 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 19, 2026, that a tentative settlement agreement was reached in the employees class suit and California PAGA class suit. In December 2023, Natural Alternatives International, Inc. was sued by three former employees in two separate but substantially identical matters brought by the same law firm. The lawsuits were filed as a putative class action and a California Private Attorney General Act action seeking awards for all similarly situated employees going back ten years or more. Natural Alternatives International, Inc. responded to these actions and agreed to submit the matters for mediation. On July 3, 2025, the mediation took place, and a tentative settlement agreement was reached whereby Natural Alternatives International, Inc. agreed to contribute a maximum of $1.25 million. The court has consolidated the two actions. The potential settlement has been brought before the court, which must approve it, and all similarly situated employees need to be contacted, and they may elect to participate or not. The process of obtaining court approval of the settlement is estimated to take approximately another three months, and Natural Alternatives International, Inc. anticipates the settlement of this case to conclude around July or August of calendar year 2026. The Company accrued the maximum settlement amount in its results of operations as of June 30, 2025, along with estimated related legal fees of $150,000. During the nine months ended March 31, 2026, the Company accrued additional estimated related legal fees of $12,000. In addition, the Company is involved in a federal tax controversy relating to its Employee Retention Tax Credit ("ERTC"). In fiscal 2023, the Company recorded a $3.5 million ERTC net refund associated with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and subsequent legislation, after determining it qualified for the credit for the first three quarters of calendar 2021 and filing amended payroll tax returns. On December 9, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued a 105c letter stating that it did not believe the Company qualified for the credit for the third quarter of calendar 2021, and the Company responded to contest the IRS position. Despite this initial denial, the Company continues to believe it is entitled to the refund and has not recorded any allowance against the ERTC accrual recognized in fiscal 2023, and as of the date of the filing it had not received further IRS correspondence regarding its appeal, although in April 2025 it collected $2.9 million of refunds related to the first and second quarters of calendar 2021. Natural Alternatives International Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of nutritional supplements, custom formulations and branded ingredients, serving global customers in the dietary supplement, health and wellness, and sports nutrition industries. The company provides contract manufacturing, science-based product development and related services from its facilities in the United States and abroad. NDC NEWBURGH: Mossos Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- JUAN SEBASTIAN MOSSOS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NDC NEWBURGH LLC d/b/a NOCHES DE COLOMBIA NEWBURGH, JUAN CAMILO RODRIGUEZ, SANDRA MILENA VALENCIA, and JOHN DOES as the top 10 shareholders of NDC NEWBURGH LLC d/b/a NOCHES DE COLOMBIA NEWBURGH, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-03818 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously to deprive Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated of their wages, as Defendants are sophisticated businesspersons and knew what the law required, and ultimately terminated Plaintiff Mossos in retaliation for complaining of same. In addition, the Defendants created, enabled, and/or motivated a sexually hostile work environment, subjected Plaintiff to unwelcome sexual touching and language due to his sex, and retaliated against him when he complained about the sexual harassment. Plaintiff Mossos began to work for Defendants in or around December 24, 2020, when he was hired by Defendants' Manager, Liliana Mejia, as a food runner. NDC Newburgh LLC d/b/a Noches de Colombia Newburgh owns multiple "Noches de Columbia" franchise restaurants in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Echevarria, Esq. ECHEVARRIA LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 1053 Warwick, NY 10990 Telephone: (845) 544-7644 E-mail: jennifer@echevarrialawpllc.com NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McConnell Dorce, et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rochon entered an amended order of reference to a Magistrate Judge: This action is referred to the designated Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): -- Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and Recommendation). Particular Motion: Motion to Certify Class New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=os84tq at no extra charge.[CC] NEXTPOWER INC: Derivative, Securities Class Suits Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Nextpower Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the securities class suit and stockholder derivative suits with prejudice. On December 27, 2024, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by a purported stockholder in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants Nextpower and certain of the Nextpower officers, alleging that defendants made false and misleading statements about our business, financial results and prospects. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the purported class. On March 9, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint while allowing plaintiffs leave to amend. On April 6, 2026, plaintiffs served notice that they would not file an amended complaint. On April 13, 2026, the court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of Nextpower and all other defendants. Plaintiffs had until May 13, 2026 to file an appeal. Plaintiffs did not appeal the judgment and the judgment is therefore final. On January 23, 2025 and March 18, 2025, purported stockholders of Nextpower filed stockholder derivative actions against the Nextpower directors and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California based on factual allegations similar to those underlying the securities class action described above. The derivative actions assert claims on behalf of Nextpower for, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duties, and seek damages and restitution to be paid to Nextpower by the individual defendants, governance changes and attorney’s fees and costs. The derivative cases were stayed pending resolution of the securities class action. On May 14, 2026, following the final judgment in favor of all defendants in the related securities class action, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the court dismiss the derivative cases without prejudice, which the court granted on May 15, 2026. Nextpower Inc. is a publicly traded company operating in the energy and technology sectors, focusing on innovative power solutions and related services. The company develops, markets and supports products designed to enhance efficiency and reliability in modern power infrastructure. NISSAN NORTH: Pretrial Conference Set for March 22, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERIDA JOHNSON, SUBRINA SEENARAIN, LINDA SPRY, and LISA SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00517-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order that the Pretrial Conference shall be held on March 22, 2027: Motion to dismiss and case management Aug. 19, 2026 conference hearings: Last day to hold settlement conference Oct. 9, 2026 or private mediation: Hearing on class notice: Oct. 14, 2026 Close of discovery: Dec. 11, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to issue class Dec. 11, 2026 notice: Last day for dispositive motions to be Feb. 3, 2027 heard; such motions shall be filed in time to comply with this deadline: Pretrial conference and hearing on March 22, 2027 motions in limine and jury instructions: Nissan operates in the automotive industry. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qjNHHe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam A. Edwards, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq. Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 facsimile: (865) 533-0049 E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com wladnier@milberg.com gwhitener@milberg.com mbreit@millberg.com - and - Crystal Foley, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 100 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1350 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-3555 Facsimile: (310) 322-3655 E-mail: cfoley@simmonsfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Amir M. Nassihi, Esq. Andrew L. Chang, Esq. H. Grant Law, Esq. Holly Pauling Smith, Esq. Ryan Sandrock, Esq. Holly Pauling Smith, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com achang@shb.com hlaw@shb.com hpsmith@shb.com OGORGEOUS INC: Meade Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAH MEADE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. OGORGEOUS INC. d/b/a POPFLEX, Case No. 26-2-07952-3 (Filed April 20, 2026) was removed from the Washington Superior Court for Pierce County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma on May 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05522 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "all Washington residents holding an email address to which Defendant POPFLEX sent or caused to be sent any email during the Class Period." The Plaintiff seeks $500 in statutory damages per violation, which she claims means $500 per email, per recipient.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Meegan Brooks, Esq. Erika O'Sullivan, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 E-mail: brooksm@ballardspahr.com osullivane@ballardspahr.com OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Roper Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THELMA ROPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-02112-BAH (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification for two classes of persons similarly situated, who were sued by the Defendants beyond the normal three year statute of limitations. Ms. Roper proposes herself as class representative and her counsel as class counsel. The facts, class definitions and claims, evidence and argument are set out more fully in the memorandum in support attached hereto. The Defendant is an investment company that purchases portfolios of receivables from major banks, alternative lenders, and other financial institutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6DjppW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 914 Bay Ridge Rd, Ste 230 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com OUTFRONT MEDIA: Class Cert Filing in Arevalo Extended to August 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCOS AREVALO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OUTFRONT MEDIA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-01682-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its ex parte application to seek brief 65-day extension of the Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification from June 17, 2026 to Aug. 21, 2026. Good cause exists because the Plaintiff diligently has attempted to seek classwide discovery since this case was removed. Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, the Defendant has not provided class data, including putative class contact information, putative class timekeeping records, and putative class payroll records. The Defendant's failure to produce necessary and relevant discovery prejudices the putative class and has prevented Plaintiff from being able to adequately prepare his motion for class certification by the current deadline of June 17, 2026. Accordingly, with this short extension the Plaintiff anticipates being able to conduct the class-wide discovery necessary for him to prepare and file a motion for class certification. Outfront Media is an American advertising company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pagzvX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sam Sani, Esq. SANI LAW, APC 595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 522 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (310) 935-0405 Facsimile: (310) 935-0409 E-mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Lara Cardin De Leon, Esq. Alex Joshua Valle, Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH AND PROPHETE, LLP 2020 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 743-3979 Facsimile: (949) 743-3934 E-mail: ldeleon@constangy.com avalle@constangy.com PAPA JOHN'S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hussein Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Papa John's International, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05964 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate website, https://www.papajohns.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is an online platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services offered by the Defendant. The online platform allows the user to explore the restaurant menu and access pizza restaurant services, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PAYACTIV INC: Ortiz Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------- Arelis Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated vs. PAYACTIV, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01460-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2026), is brought arising out of Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Federal Communications Commission regulations promulgated thereunder ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited marketing text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant transmitted unsolicited marketing text messages to Plaintiff and other consumers, including messages initiated before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in violation of the TCPA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under the TCPA, and actual damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, arising from Defendant's unlawful telemarketing practices, which intruded upon Plaintiff's and the Class members' privacy and quiet enjoyment of their telephones, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA. Payactiv, Inc. is an Wisconsin Incorporated authorized to do business in Florida and doing business as Payactiv, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit R. Venkatesh, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Ave Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: 305-506-4746 Email: vv@plgdamage.com PEAG LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Powell Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA POWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03836 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) is a civil action against JLab for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive website, www.jlab.com in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On multiple occasions in 2026, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's website using screenreader technology in order to research and purchase JLab's wireless and wired earbuds. Despite multiple attempts, the Plaintiff was unable to independently complete her objectives due to persistent access barriers. During this visit, the Plaintiff encountered multiple barriers that prevented her from independently evaluating the earbuds collection. The Defendant's inaccessible website denies her and other blind consumers equal access to the goods and services it offers to the general public and prevents blind users from participating in the digital marketplace on equal terms, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.jlab.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab operates the website that offers earbuds and audio products to consumers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PETROLEX II: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 2 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v Petrolex II, LLC, et al. Case No. 4:23-cv-40175 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to July 2, 2026, to File Class Certification Motion and Briefing. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability. The Defendant is engaged in specialized repair services.[CC] PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. The case is styled as Araceli Huerta, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc., Case No. MCV098963 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (PPMM) -- https://www.plannedparenthood.org/ -- is the largest Planned Parenthood affiliate in the U.S., providing medical and education services.[BN] PRICE TRANSFER INC: Jimenez-Ruan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Price Transfer, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Johnny Guadalupe Jimenez-Ruan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Price Transfer, Inc, Case No. 26STCV14705 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Price Transfer, Inc. -- https://www.pricetransfer.com/ -- operates as a provider of centralized examination stations.[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 PRIME SHINE: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Act Payment of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Keri Garcia, an individual, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. PRIME SHINE, LLC, a limited liability company; MISTER CAR WASH, INC. a corporation; CAR WASH PARTNERS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV14063 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 1, 2026), is brought arising to violations of state wage and hour laws, including laws mandating the payment of wages. Throughout the relevant time period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and the IWC Wage Orders. DEFENDANTS engaged, suffered, or permitted employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation. On multiple occasions throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees worked overtime by working in excess of 8 hours in one workday, and/or in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek, and/or working on the seventh day of work in any one workweek. Despite working overtime hours, Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees were not compensated at the rate of at least one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants. Prime Shine, LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a limited liability company, existing, doing business. and employing individuals in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Elkin. Esq. Benjamin McLain, Esq. ELKIN | GAMBOA, LLP 4119 W. Burbank Blvd., suite 110 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: 323.372.1202 Facsimile: 323,372.1216 Email: michael@elkingamboa.com ben@elkingamboa.com PROV1322 LLC: Nonato Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROV1322 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05370 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://thevintagepearl.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Nonato and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff Nonato was searching online for personalized, handcrafted jewelry intended as a gift. During his search, Nonato came across the Defendant's website. After reviewing the company's customer feedback, he decided to explore the available offerings. During his visit, he became interested in the Faith Charm Necklace and attempted to purchase it. However, Nonato encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the transaction. The Plaintiff contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Nonato and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Nonato seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. PROV1322 LLC operates the website that offers personalized, hand-stamped jewelry, including necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, and pearls, and keepsakes like ornaments and keychains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law QSR ENTERPRISES: FLSA-Notice Discovery OK'd for 24 Restos --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jessica Douglas, Plaintiff, v. QSR Enterprises Admin, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00928-PAB (N.D. Ohio), Judge Pamela A. Barker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 18, 2026, found that FLSA-notice discovery is appropriate at all 24 McDonald's restaurants alleged in the Amended Complaint, and that the employment status of the employees at those restaurants is a merits issue to be resolved after notice has occurred. Plaintiff filed her Class and Collective Action Complaint on May 8, 2025, alleging that Defendants QSR Enterprises Admin, LLC, QSR Executive Enterprises, LLC, and QSR Enterprises Norwalk, LLC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act's overtime provisions. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants are her joint employers, collectively operating 24 McDonald's restaurants in northeast Ohio. The case was stayed for approximately seven months while the parties pursued private mediation. Mediation proved unsuccessful, and on April 27, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Status Report confirming that issues concerning entity relationships, centralized control, joint employment, and the proper scope of FLSA notice discovery remained unresolved. Two threshold issues were ripe for the Court's review: (1) whether FLSA-notice discovery is appropriate solely for Defendant QSR Enterprises Norwalk, LLC as opposed to all limited liability companies and McDonald's locations referenced in the Amended Complaint, and (2) whether these issues should be decided immediately as a threshold issue prior to FLSA-notice discovery commencing or as a merits issue after FLSA notice has occurred. The Court noted that under the Sixth Circuit's standard in Clark v. A&L Homecare, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), plaintiffs must demonstrate a strong likelihood that other employees are similarly situated before a district court may facilitate FLSA notice. The Court further observed that while Clark found individualized defenses relevant at the notice stage, courts continue to defer merits-based questions until after the notice stage when those questions are equally applicable to all plaintiffs. Accordingly, questions of whether defendants are joint employers are premature at the initial stage of an FLSA collective action. The Court found that Plaintiff's theory is that the named Defendants jointly employ the proposed collective, and did not construe the Amended Complaint as alleging that the 24 location-specific Non-Defendant Entities, identified in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint, employed Plaintiff or the proposed collective. The Court found the case more analogous to Murphy v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare, Kuchar v. Saber Healthcare Holdings, LLC, Weisgarber v. North American Dental Group, LLC, and Thomas v. Papa John's International, Inc. than to Knecht v. C&W Facility Services. In each of those cases, as here, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants are joint employers, and unlike Knecht, Plaintiff did not allege that the Non-Defendant Entities employed the proposed collective. The Court found the parties' proposed discovery schedule unacceptable, noting that under their proposal, Plaintiff's Motion for Court-Approved Notice would not become ripe until 2027. Citing Clark's mandate that district courts expedite their decision to the extent practicable, and observing that the matter had already been pending for a year while stayed during an ultimately unsuccessful mediation, the Court stated it would issue a separate order setting a more condensed schedule. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=twF9xU from PacerMonitor.com Defendants QSR Enterprises Admin, LLC, QSR Enterprises Norwalk, LLC, and QSR Executive Enterprises, LLC are represented by: David A. Campbell, III, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI - COLUMBUS 216-385-5347 Email: dcampbell@grsm.com Donald G. Slezak, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 216-302-2531 Email: dslezak@grsm.com Plaintiff Jessica Douglas is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER 216-230-2955 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER 330-470-4428 Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com Robert E. DeRose, II, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX 614-221-4221 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX - COLUMBUS 614-221-4221 Email: acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com Nickole Iula, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX - COLUMBUS 614-221-4221 Email: niula@barkanmeizlish.com Terminated Defendant Jason Payne (dismissed without prejudice on September 22, 2025) was represented by: David A. Campbell, III, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI - COLUMBUS 216-385-5347 Email: dcampbell@grsm.com Donald G. Slezak, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 216-302-2531 Email: dslezak@grsm.com RB GLOBAL: Contract Manufacturing Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Contract Manufacturing Services, Inc. doing business as: AllFab Railings & Metalworks, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB Global, Inc., Rouse Services LLC, United Rentals Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Herc Rentals Inc., HERC Holdings Inc., H&E Equipment Services Inc., Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01262 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10500 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RB Global, Inc. -- https://rbglobal.com/ -- provides a marketplace for insights, services, and transaction solutions for commercial assets and vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Email: slesser@klafterlesser.com RELX GROUP PLC: Wanna Suit Removed to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Wanna, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of a limited class of similarly situated Minnesota residents v. RELX Group PLC, Case No. 27-cv-26-5733 was removed from the District Court, Hennepin County, Fourth Judicial District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 8, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02556-JMB-ECW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. RELX -- https://www.relx.com/ -- is a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers, enabling them to make better decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Amanda Jasmine Rosenberg, Esq. 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 RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renewal by Andersen LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01267-JKM (M.D. Pa., May 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Renewal by Andersen -- https://www.renewalbyandersen.com/ -- is the full-service window and door replacement division of Andersen Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Clark Files Fraud Class Suit in D. Kan. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc. The case is captioned as Brittany Clark, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-01112-TC-JBW (D. Kan., April 29, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged fraudulent conduct. The case is reassigned from District Judge Eric F. Melgren to District Judge Toby Crouse for all further proceedings. Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc. is one of the largest Pizza Hut franchisees in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7175 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dey Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:24-cv-07442-RFL (N.D. Cal., S.F. Div.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C as Class Counsel, and certifying this action to proceed as a class action on behalf of the following Class: "All persons who were Robinhood Non-Gold members at any time between Sept. 23, 2022 through Nov. 10, 2025 who had cash deposits in one or more Program Banks pursuant to Robinhood’s Deposit Sweep Program, excluding the Excluded Non-Gold Members." Excluded from the Class1 are “Excluded Non-Gold Members” defined as: a. Any person who enrolled in Robinhood Gold at any point beginning and/or subsequent to September 23, 2022, effective the date in which they enrolled in Robinhood Gold, even if they subsequently unenrolled in Robinhood Gold. b. Any person who enrolled in Robinhood Gold at any point prior to Sept. 23, 2022, who was enrolled on September 23, 2022, and who at any point subsequent to Sept. 23, 2022 unenrolled. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of California, who was enrolled in the Non-Gold Program and was subject to Robinhood’s Uniform Agreement and Conduct. The Defendant is a financial services company that operates an online platform through which it provides brokerage and other services to retail customers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X9pLf4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. Matthew T. Macken, Esq. Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com tgraden@ktmc.com mmacken@ktmc.com jjoost@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973)-994-1700 Facsimile: (973)-994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com ROQUETTE AMERICA: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 14, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNE-MARIE HELENTHAL and DEBRA HUNTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ROQUETTE AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00104-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephen Jackson, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties must exchange initial disclosures by June 12, 2026. 2. First interrogatories and document requests on class certification issues must be served by July 1, 2026. 3. Fact witnesses on class certification issues must be deposed by Nov. 2, 2026. 4. Motions for leave to add parties or amend pleadings during class certification stage must be filed by Nov. 16, 2026. 5. Discovery on class certification issues must be completed by April 30, 2027. 6. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be filed by May 14, 2027. The Defendant has until July 14, 2027 to respond. The Plaintiffs have until August 13, 2027 to reply. 7. Motions challenging class certification expert testimony ("Daubert") and dispositive motions as to claims of named plaintiffs must be filed by July 14, 2027. Responses must be filed by Aug. 13, 2027. The Defendant owns and operates a wet corn milling plants. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PTyprJ at no extra charge.[CC] SAALEX CORP: Yamada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAALEX CORP. The case is styled as Tetsuya Yamada, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAALEX CORP., Case No. 2026CUOE065891 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Saalex Corporation -- https://saalex.com/ -- is an engineering & information technology services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com SALTY DOGS ROOFING: Christ Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salty Dogs Roofing LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Christ, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated v. Salty Dogs Roofing LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01890-RMG (D.S.C., May 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Salty Dogs Roofing LLC -- https://saltydogsroofing.com/ -- is a Southeastern North Carolina-based roofing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Nicole Clark, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: brittany@kaufmanpa.com SCHWARTZ VAYS LLC: Warren Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schwartz Vays, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Andrea Warren, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Schwartz Vays, LLC; Schwartz Vays MD, LLC doing business as: Axela Collections Technology; Case No. 8:26-cv-01857-AAQ (D. Md., May 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Schwartz Vays -- https://schwartzvays.com/ -- specializes in providing simple and efficient debt repayment solutions for consumers, aiming to ease the burden of debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin Voss, Esq. NAGLE & ZALLER, P.C. 8840 Stanford Boulevard, Suite 1800 Columbia, MD 21045 Phone: (443) 865-2651 Email: erin@naglezaller.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com SEFAS INNOVATION: Ocejo Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sefas Innovation, Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Ocejo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sefas Innovation, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-12086 (D. Mass., May 7, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sefas Innovation -- https://sefas.com/ -- is a leader in Customer Communication Management (CCM), providing an end-to-end omni-channel solution that encompasses composition, production, distribution, archival, and retrieval of communications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com SIMONMED IMAGING: Fact Discovery in Ascent Extended to Oct. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ascent Chiropractic LLC v. SimonMed Imaging MSO LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01711 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Nov. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time: -- Deadline for Fact Discovery is extended to October 8, 2026 -- Plaintiff's Expert Witness List is due November 12, 2026 -- Defendants' Expert Witness List due December 17, 2026 -- Plaintiff's rebuttal expert disclosure (if any) is due January 14, 2027 -- Plaintiff shall file its Rule 23 motion for class certification by March 11, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). SimonMed is engaged a health-tech and longevity business.[CC] SKECHERS USA: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Promotional Emails ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Cabili, writing for Quartz, reports that a federal judge decided on Monday, May 18, that a lawsuit against Skechers USA over allegedly deceptive promotional emails can move forward. The case focuses on subject lines that may have created fake urgency about discount offers. On May 19, the company's bid to end the litigation early was turned away by U.S. District Judge David Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, with Washington state's Commercial Electronic Mail Act providing the legal basis for the surviving claims. In his ruling, Judge Estudillo concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to move forward, pointing to the complaint's characterization of Skechers' outreach as "unsolicited and harassing emails" whose subject lines were deceptive, according to Reuters. In September 2025, Washington residents Stephen Liss and Boni Melchor filed a complaint accusing Skechers of using urgent phrases like "Today Only!", "The Clock Is Ticking," and "Don't Miss Out" in their emails, but then keeping the deals going after the deadlines had passed. For example, the plaintiffs said Skechers sent a May 26, 2025, email saying "Long Weekend Savings End Tonight," followed by another the next morning titled "Surprise! Long Weekend Savings Extended for Today," according to Reuters. Two additional defense arguments were turned aside by the court: that the federal CAN-SPAM Act displaces the state-level claims, and that prolonging a sale period benefits shoppers and therefore cannot form the basis of a misleading-communications claim. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages, according to Reuters. Skechers did not respond to requests for comment. Skechers is not the only retailer facing lawsuits over this type of marketing. Washington state has become a center for legal challenges to email campaigns that use fake deadlines. This trend started after the Washington Supreme Court's 2025 Brown v. Old Navy decision, which said the state's email marketing law covers not just whether a message is commercial, but also whether claims about promotion dates are accurate. Since then, more than 100 retailers have been sued by consumers who say deadline-focused subject lines were followed by extensions or repeats of the same sales. Ulta $ULTA +2.18% Beauty is another company whose similar legal case was not dismissed early. The case is Liss v. Skechers USA INC., 3:25-cv-05861 (W.D. Wash.). [GN] SOCAL PREMIER MARKETING: Rolon Sues Over Minimum Wages, Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Rolon, and Kiara Bulnes as a designated Private Attorney General, pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act v. SOCAL PREMIER MARKETING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26NWCV01576 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2026), is brought arising out of an ongoing wrongful scheme by Defendant to deny its employees the benefits due under California's wage and hour laws for work performed in California. The Defendant wrongfully refused to compensate Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees for minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide timely uninterrupted meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and pay wages owed at the end of the employment, as required under California law. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of the State of California as a Private Attorney General seeks relief against Defendant for its: failure to pay all wages due, including minimum and overtime wages; statements failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses; and failure to pay wages due upon termination of employment. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant in a paid hourly non-exempt positions. The Defendant is a marketing and sales agency promoting products for large brands inside retail stores such as Costco or electronics retailers, selling programming services to companies including without limitation AT&T via telemarketing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 590-5550 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net balem@mahoney-law.net SOUTH CENTRAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Class Suit for $2.8M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that South Central Bank has agreed to a $2,800,000 settlement to conclude a class action lawsuit that alleged the financial institution charged accountholders improper overdraft fees on transactions authorized on sufficient funds and on repeated attempts to process the same transaction. The $2.8 million South Central Bank class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 13, 2026. The settlement covers all individuals who were charged one or more of the following "challenged fees" by South Central Bank: -- Overdraft fees assessed by the bank between October 4, 2009 and October 8, 2018 after a signature-based debit card transaction that was authorized on sufficient funds but settled in the authorized amount (authorized positive, settled negative, or APSN, fees); and -- Overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees assessed by the bank between October 4, 2009 and December 31, 2025 on repeated attempts to process a transaction that had been initially denied for insufficient funds (retry fees). Court documents state that consumers who received a settlement notice by mail are automatically covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the South Central Bank overdraft fee settlement can be found at JohnsonOverdraftClassAction.com. South Central Bank settlement class members do not need to take any action to receive a pro rata cash payment from the deal. The amount of each class member's payout will depend on the amount of fees paid by the individual. Court documents note that class members who are current accountholders with the South Central Bank will receive their settlement payout as a credit to their open account, whereas former accountholders will receive their payout via check. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the South Central Bank settlement following a hearing on July 7, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The South Central Bank class action lawsuit alleged that the Kentucky-based financial services provider wrongfully charged accountholders overdraft fees on debit card transactions, including APSN and retry fees, in violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. [GN] STATE FARM: Parties Must Submit Status Report by May 27 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HARDY & JERMINE SANTIAGO, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00072-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Martines entered an order granting the joint motion to continue stay of proceedings pending settlement. The Court stays all case deadlines pending in these proceedings pending the motion for preliminary settlement approval. On May 27, 2026, the Parties are directed to submit a status report or the Plaintiffs will file the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification of settlement class before that date. On March 16, 2026, the Parties submitted a joint status report and motion to continue the stay of proceedings while the Parties worked cooperatively to finalize the terms of the settlement. On May 1, 2026, the Court entered an order continuing the stay of proceedings pending settlement and directed the Parties to submit a status report or for Plaintiffs to file the Unopposed Motion by May 13, 2026. State Farm is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r4hvR9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen M. Hanson, Esq. STEPHEN M. HANSEN, P.S. 3800 Bridgeport Way, Ste. A, PMB 5 University Place, WA 98466 Telephone: (253) 302-5955 E-mail: Steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com - and – Scott P. Nealey, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. NEALEY 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 231-5311 E-mail: snealey@nealeylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Roesch, Esq. JENSEN MORSE BAKER PLLC 520 Pike Street, Suite 2375 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-1644 E-mail: steve.jensen@jmblawyers.com benjamin.roesch@jmblawyers.com - and – David Carpenter, Esq. Tiffany Powers, Esq. Melissa Quintana, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 E-mail: David.Carpenter@alston.com Tiffany.Powers@alston.com Melissa.Quintana@alston.com STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abdisalam v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12141 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Richard G Stearns entered an order allowing in part motion for an extension as follows: -- Any amended complaint is due by May 22, 2026 -- Defendant's response to the amended complaint is due June 5, 2026 -- If a motion to dismiss is filed, any opposition is due June 19, 2026 -- Reply, if any, by leave of court only. If there is disagreement as to the delineation of the plaintiff class, class discovery will be completed by July 15, 2026 -- Class certification motions will be filed by July 29, 2026, with any opposition by Aug. 12, 2026 -- If there is no disagreement as to delineation of the class, all fact discovery will be completed by Nov. 5, 2026 The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. The Defendant is engaged in logistics services.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Braking Systems ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Subaru of America faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the EyeSight Driver Assist Technology in certain 2022-2026 models is defective, as the collision-avoidance feature can cause a vehicle to abruptly slow down, or stop entirely, without driver input or obstacles in front of or behind the car. The 87-page lawsuit claims that Subaru of America has "actively concealed" the defect plaguing its autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system, which was designed to prevent or mitigate collisions with objects in the roadway. The suit alleges that the AEB system in the affected Subaru models is prone to malfunction and activate without cause, or fail to activate when necessary, causing a vehicle to suddenly brake or come to a complete stop in the middle of the road. According to the complaint, Subaru has known of the apparent braking system defect since at least 2012 from pre-release testing data, early consumer complaints to dealers, warranty claims, and more. The vehicles at issue in the Subaru class action lawsuit include: a. -2023-2026 Subaru Legacy, Outback, and Ascent; b. -2024-2026 Subaru Impreza and Crosstrek; c. -2022-2026 Subaru Forester and WRX; and d. -2025-2026 Subaru BRZ. According to the filing, Subaru represents that the above-listed vehicles are equipped with AEB systems that include pre-collision braking and reverse automatic braking, as well as lane-keep assist capabilities. Per the case, these features are designed to detect a potential car crash and automatically brake to avoid a collision or reduce the severity of impact. Subaru advertises the pre-collision braking and lane-keep assist features as part of its EyeSight Driver Assist Technology suite of safety features included in the class vehicles, the case adds. The class action lawsuit says that although the automaker touts the "superior safety" of EyeSight-equipped vehicles, Subaru has concealed that the systems are "poorly" calibrated and integrated and prone to failure in real-world driving conditions. The case says that the calibration failures lead to "miscommunication" within the systems involved in automatic emergency braking, including the vehicles' sensors, cameras, brakes, and transmission. Per the case, the AEB system in the affected Subaru models is dependent on cameras and sensors mounted to the exterior front and rear of the vehicle. When an object is detected on the road, information collected by these cameras and sensors is run through a control module equipped with a proprietary algorithm to calculate the speed, acceleration, and distance of both the vehicle and the object, the filing explains. This control module can be tuned by Subaru to the vehicle's exact weight and configuration, the suit says. The lawsuit claims, however, that Subaru "overreached" with regard to the capabilities of the AEB system by "improperly" tuning the driver-assistance features to fully apply the brakes when the vehicle perceives a stationary object. As a result, the suit claims, the AEB system can activate "unnecessarily early and with unnecessary force," presenting a "clear-cut safety hazard." The class action lawsuit adds that the Subaru AEB system is "unpredictable" and sometimes fails to activate even in situations where it is needed, such as when a driver encounters an unexpected pedestrian or vehicle stopped in the road. The case says that the vehicles' lane-keep assist feature is similarly defective as it "resists" driver input when a consumer attempts to change lanes or drive through a construction zone with barriers, and can cause the steering wheel to jerk without cause. According to the complaint, Subaru should have known that the class vehicles were hampered by "unusually high levels" of false activations and malfunctions that were indicative of a "systemic" defect that created what Car and Driver called a "shocking" variation in vehicle response time and braking. The suit goes on to state that Subaru has issued at least 12 technical service bulletins and other communications regarding vehicle EyeSight failures or related systems since 2012. One such bulletin noted that issues with Subaru's EyeSight cameras could be linked to dirty or fogged glass, raindrops, fingerprints, deteriorated wipers, bad weather, or steep slopes, among others, the lawsuit says. "[E]ven prior to bringing the class vehicles to market, Subaru was cognizant of the difficulty in integrating the software of all systems required for those systems to function as advertised," the case emphasizes. Notably, Subaru agreed to a class action settlement in a case that alleged the same AEB and EyeSight problems in earlier-model-year vehicles. The lawsuit posits that the fact that the EyeSight problems are an ongoing issue shows that Subaru has failed to take "remedial measures" to improve the AEB system. The Subaru class action lawsuit looks to cover residents of the United States or its territories who purchased or leased, other than for resale, any of the following vehicles: 2023-2026 Subaru Legacy, Outback, and Ascent vehicles; 2024-2026 Subaru Impreza and Crosstrek vehicles; 2022-2026 Subaru Forester and WRX vehicles; and 2025-2026 BRZ vehicles. [GN] SUPPORT PETS: Faces Goven Class Suit Over "ESA and PSD Products" ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA GOVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUPPORT PETS LLC, a Florida Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-04226 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2026) alleges that Defendant is misleading consumers into believing that its emotional support animals (ESA) and psychiatric service dogs (PSD) products are official, necessary and legally meaningful, when in fact those products are not required by law and do not independently create or establish any legal rights. According to the complaint, if Defendant described the ESA and PSD Products for what they are, privately branded documentation and accessories with no independent legal significance, the Defendant would likely be unable to sell them and/or would not be able to charge the prices it does for them. The Defendant's material misrepresentations relating to its "Official ESA and PSD" products have caused Plaintiff and the Class members to sustain damages by purchasing documentation and products they believed were official and legally meaningful when, in fact, they are not. The process utilized by Defendant to vet whether consumers qualify for an ESA Letter is incapable of determining whether that consumer meets the qualifications necessary for the Letter to be valid. These ESA and PSD bundles of products sell for prices ranging from $99 to $499. The Defendant's alleged dirty little secret is that none of the documentation or paraphernalia it sells is legally required for service dogs to enter public places, the suit contends. Support Pets is a Florida-based company that sells ESA and PSD bundles of products to provide pet owners with all they need to take their pets anywhere. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025-7524 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (800) 552-0265 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com TEAM GROUP: $1.1MM Settlement Claim Forms Deadline Set July 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Team Group, Inc. has agreed to a $1,100,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the computer accessories manufacturer falsely advertised that its DDR-3, DDR-4 and DDR-5 dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) products could reach higher speeds than were possible without significant adjustments. The $1.1 million Team Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 7, 2026. The settlement covers all individuals in the United States who purchased one or more Team Group DDR-3, DDR-4 and/or DDR-5 DRAM computer products between May 3, 2020 and April 8, 2026. The court-approved website for the Team Group DRAM settlement can be found at TeamGroupDRAMSettlement.com. Team Group settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment for each DRAM product purchased. Class members can claim as many Team Group DRAM products as they have proof of purchase for, but can only receive a cash payout for up to five products without proof of purchase. Distributions from the deal will be paid on a per-product, per-household basis, and the value of each class member's share will depend on the total number of valid claims filed. To file a Team Group settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and either enter the notice ID and confirmation code found on their copy of the settlement notice or provide their personal information and verification to submit a claim. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Team Group settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 7, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Team Group DRAM product settlement following a hearing on September 3, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Team Group class action lawsuit claimed that the computer parts and accessories manufacturer falsely advertised that its dynamic random-access memory products, including the DDR-3, DDR-4 and DDR-5, could function at higher speeds than were possible "out of the box," as the products required substantial adjustments by the consumer to reach advertised speeds. [GN] THINK TOGETHER: Durpree Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Think Together. The case is styled as Tynicia Durpree, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Think Together, Case No. 26STCV14881 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Think Together -- https://thinktogether.org/ -- provides high-quality expanded learning programs to support students and provides leaders with professional development and staffing 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 TROOPER KAHLER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 9, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM, v. TROOPER AMANDA KAHLER, et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-03076-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an third amended scheduling and trial order as follows: The Plaintiff expert designation: May 5, 2027 The Defendant expert designation: June 4, 2027 Discovery dispute motions: June 19, 2027 Completion of Discovery (both fact and July 9, 2027 expert discovery): Dispositive motions and motions for class Aug. 9, 2027 Certification: The Defendant's deadline to file any Sept. 9, 2027 suggestions in opposition to class certification: The Plaintiff's deadline to file any Oct. 9, 2027 reply in support of class certification: A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5H7rK5 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED HEALTH: Big Island Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Big Island Health Clinic, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00211 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02531-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Fred I. Waki, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRED I. WAKI Executive Centre 1088 Bishop St. Suite 910 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 779-9409 Email: fwaki@hotmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Lisa Katherine Swartzfager, Esq. CASE SCHUTTE LLP 1000 Bishop Street, Ste. 1200 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 521-9205 Email: lswartzfager@cades.com UNITED HEALTH: Care Counseling Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Care Counseling Services LLC, HealthFirst Family Care Center, and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00304 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02532-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas G. Kline, Esq. SHAHEEN & GORDON PA 353 Central Ave, Ste 200 Dover, NH 03821 Phone: (603) 749-5000 Email: nkline@shaheengordon.com The Defendants are represented by: Rose Marie Joly, Esq. Paula R. Domanski, Esq. SULLOWAY & HOLLIS PLLC 9 Capitol St Concord, NH 03301-1256 Phone: (603) 224-2341 Fax: (603) 223-2939 Email: rjoly@sulloway.com pdomanski@sulloway.com UNITED STATES: McGee Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS MCGEE, MD PA, APRIL E. LOPEZ, FNPBC, LLC DBA LOPEZ FAMILY CLINIC, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, DR. MEHMET OZ, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, Case No. 4:26-cv-00243-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2). Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of: "all providers whose claims for Medicare Part B reimbursement for skin substitutes were subject to unlawful post-payment audits and recoupment demands on the grounds that such products are experimental and investigational (i.e., the Clawback Policy)." Because the Plaintiffs seek "uniform group remedies," certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate. The Plaintiffs filed this suit on March 4, 2026, alleging violations of the APA and the Medicare statute and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs have met and conferred with counsel for the Defendants regarding the necessity of the Plaintiffs receiving discovery from the government to help prove their class allegations. The Plaintiffs include BRIAN G. LODER, DPM, PLC DBA DETROIT FOOT AND ANKLE, HEALTHCARE HOUSECALLS LLC, INDY WOUND CENTER FOR LIMB PRESERVATION & RECONSTRUCTION DBA INDY WOUND CENTER, INTEGRATED WOUND CARE CONNECTICUT PLLC, WOUND MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS LLC, WYOMING MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, and CARLO DOMINGO, AGNP-C, individually. HSS provides essential human services in areas such as funding medical studies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bKneP9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert M. Hill, Esq. Mark D. Polston, Esq. Nikesh Jindal, Esq. Ahsin Azim, Esq. Kyle Gotchy, Esq. Paul d'Ambrosio, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 2601 Olive Street, Suite 2300 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 764-4414 Facsimile: (214) 764-4601 E-mail: rhill@kslaw.com mpolston@kslaw.com njindal@kslaw.com aazim@kslaw.com kgotchy@kslaw.com pdambrosio@kslaw.com - and - Preeya Noronha Pinto, Esq. Josh Gardner, Esq. Deborah Samenow, Esq. Allison Velez, Esq. DLA PIPER 500 Eighth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 799-4000 E-mail: Preeya.pinto@us.dlapiper.com Josh.gardner@us.dlapiper.com Deborah.samenow@us.dlapiper.com Allison.Velez@us.dlapiper.com UNITI SERVICES: Gonzalez Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uniti Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Roselia Gonzalez, Josh Brotheim, Nathaniel Griffin, Debbie Padgett, Michelle Cox, Milton King, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Uniti Services LLC doing business as: Kinetic, Case No. 4:26-cv-00473-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Other Civil Rights. Uniti -- https://uniti.com/ -- is a premier insurgent fiber provider dedicated to enabling mission-critical connectivity across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com - and - Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 312-8505 Email: sjackson@cbplaw.com VALLEY PRIDE INC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Pride, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julian Ochoa Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Valley Pride, Inc., Desert Mist Farms, Desert Mist Farms, LLC Case No. 26CV002476 (Cal. Super. Ct., Monterey Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." Valley Pride Ag Company -- https://valleyprideag.org/ -- is a unique grower-direct supply chain company.[BN] VERITONE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Elwan v. Veritone, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-01275, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Veritone, Inc. ("Veritone" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VERI) securities between October 14, 2025 and April 14, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR VERITONE INVESTMENTS, Visit link https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/Veritone-Inc/ TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On March 26, 2026, after the market closed, Veritone issued a press release, partially announcing fourth quarter 2025 financial results, including revenue of in the range of $18.1 million to $30.0 million, and that the "Company has provided a range of expected revenue for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 because it is currently finalizing its accounting determination of certain revenue transactions under ASC 606." On this news, Veritone's stock price fell $0.77, or 29.5%, to close at $1.84 per share on March 27, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. On April 1, 2026, before the market opened, the Company filed a Form NT 10-K with the SEC, disclosing the Company "was unable, without unreasonable effort or expense, to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025 . . . within the prescribed time period primarily due to delays in finalizing the Company's accounting determination of certain barter revenue transactions under ASC 606." The filing further stated the "ongoing accounting analysis" may "result in out-of-period adjustments, the largest of which may result in a reduction in revenue for the quarter ended September 30, 2025 of $1.5 million to $2.5 million, or 5.2% to 8.6%, of the total $29.1 million of revenue previously reported for such quarter." The Company disclosed it was evaluating "whether the previously issued financial statements for the quarters ended June 30, 2025 and September 30, 2025 may need to be revised or restated." On this news, Veritone's stock price fell $0.18, or 9.14%, to close at $1.79 per share on April 1, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. On April 14, 2026, after the market closed, Veritone filed a Form 8-K with the SEC which disclosed the Company had "determined that the Company's previously issued unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 should no longer be relied upon" due to errors which resulted in, among other things, a significant overstatement of revenue and understatement of net loss. The filing disclosed a number of errors, including "an error in the valuation of consideration received associated with an on-premise software sold and delivered to a customer" as well as the "misclassification of revenue and costs in transactions in which the Company acted as an agent under ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers." On this news, Veritone's stock price fell $0.19, or 8.3%, to close at $2.09 per share on April 15, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company inaccurately recorded and/or misclassified certain revenue and costs; (2) that, as a result, the Company overstated its revenue, assets, accounts receivable, royalties and other comprehensive income; (3) that Veritone maintained deficient internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would be forced to restate certain of its financial statements, and (5) that, as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Veritone securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 [GN] WALMAN OPTICAL COMPANY: Fields Files Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Walman Optical Company. The case is styled as Wendy Fields, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Walman Optical Company doing business as: Walman Optical, Case No. 0:26-cv-02525-PJS-SGE (D. Minn., May 7, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Walman Optical Company -- https://www.walmanoptical.com/ -- provides optical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com WALMAN OPTICAL COMPANY: Nalley Files Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Walman Optical Company. The case is styled as Sheryl Nalley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Walman Optical Company doing business as: Walman Optical, Case No. 0:26-cv-02528-MJD-EMB (D. Minn., May 7, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Walman Optical Company -- https://www.walmanoptical.com/ -- provides optical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Newman Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- LELAND NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01981 (D. Colo., May 7, 2026) is a class action arising out of Defendant Western Ortho's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack between approximately September 17, 2025 and September 25, 2025, to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals. According to Defendant's notice of data breach, the Defendant became aware of the incident on October 2, 2025, and subsequently determined that an unauthorized actor had access to its network between approximately September 17 and September 25, 2025. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted in the course of providing orthopaedic care. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty, (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. Plaintiff Newman was a patient of Western Ortho whose Private Information was stored on Defendant's computer systems at the time of the data breach. Western Orthopaedics, P.C. is an orthopaedic medical practice that has been providing orthopaedic care to patients in Colorado since 1938.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com WISE PUBLISHING: Intercepts Website Users' Activity, Hanson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HANSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. WISE PUBLISHING AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; WISE PUBLISHING, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-02742 (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.moneywise.com, a website that Defendants provide for public access and use. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the website, unaware that Defendants were causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal and sensitive page views, including pages communicating his search queries and his interests. The Defendants allegedly caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing, the page titles, and the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself, says the suit. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including May 2, 2026. The Defendant owns, operates, and controls the Website, an online personal-finance publication through which Defendants publish daily personal-finance, investing, retirement, taxation, credit, and consumer-finance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com WONDERFUL CO: Bid for Class Certification Modified to July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERTHA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE WONDERFUL COMPANY LLC AND POM WONDERFUL LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01242-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramos entered an order approving schedule modification. The case management conference scheduled for September 10, 2026, is canceled. The current case management deadlines are modified as follows: -- The Plaintiffs shall complete pre-certification non-expert depositions and written discovery by June 15, 2026; however, should a class be certified, the Plaintiffs will be entitled to conduct discovery, including taking additional fact deposition testimony of the Defendants. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by July 15, 2026. -- The Defendants shall complete non-expert depositions and written discovery by Sept. 1, 2026; however, should a class be certified, the Defendants will be similarly entitled to conduct further merits-related discovery. -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 1, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed by Nov. 13, 2026. -- All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged from the Court's March 19, 2026 The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on Feb. 14, 2023, alleging that the Defendants' POM Wonderful (TM) 100% Pomegranate Juice drink (the "Class Product") contained per- and polyfluoralkyl substances ("PFAS") and misrepresented the contains of the Product. The Class Products had the following representations on its labeling during the Class Period: a. "Antioxidant Superpower" b. "100% Pomegranate Juice" c. "4 California Pomegranates" d. "100% Juice from 4 California Pomegranates." The Wonderful Company grows, harvests, and markets fruits. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p7np1P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-2180 E-mail: Nsuciu@brysonpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Reid P. Davis, Esq. ROLL LAW GROUP PC 11444 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1557 Telephone: (310) 966-8400 Facsimile: (310) 966-8810 E-mail: reid.davis@roll.com YUN YE: Must Face HomeX Ponzi Putative Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Xin "Kelly" Yang and Ting "Susan" Chen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. A Fei, Shuyun Chen, Yu "Rita" Chen, Yuezhu Du, Yurong "Mary" Hu, Yuxia Hu, Xue "Linda" Lin, Qilong "Lucy" Liu, Lijun Ouyang, Jingyi Shen, Wenling "Abby" Wang, Yun Ye, Nan "Lucas" Zheng, Xiaona "Lina" Zhou, Lei "Andy" Zhu, ASZ Supply Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-100, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-CV-5055 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Defendant Yun Ye's motion to dismiss and adopted Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action — not yet certified — against sixteen named Defendants in connection with their alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme run through a website, www.homexdeals.com (HomeX). The scheme preyed on Chinese-speaking individuals, with much of the purportedly fraudulent communications conducted in Chinese through WeChat and other similar platforms. HomeX encouraged Plaintiffs to buy memberships and make refundable deposits on purchases of goods they would later receive at a steep discount or even for free. Defendants purportedly represented that the fees and deposits would be invested to generate income necessary for the promised refunds. However, the funds were not invested as promised but were instead pocketed by Defendants. The complaint alleges that Defendant Ye was an administrator who used a WeChat account to arrange purchase orders and refunds. Defendant Ye filed a submission seeking to be removed as a defendant, which the court construed as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) based on res judicata or collateral estoppel. Defendant Ye contended that claims against him were fully resolved through settlement in a prior action filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (the Philadelphia Action) and that Plaintiffs fell within the scope of the class defined in that settlement. The court found that the Philadelphia Action was not styled as a class action but was instead filed by forty-eight individual plaintiffs. Because neither Plaintiff in the instant case was a party to the Philadelphia Action, the identity of parties prong required for res judicata and collateral estoppel was not satisfied. The court further held that Defendant Ye's privity argument — that Plaintiffs may have served as proxies, agents, or aliases of the Philadelphia plaintiffs — was raised for the first time in his objections to the Report and was therefore forfeited. The court also declined Defendant Ye's request to hold adjudication in abeyance pending fact discovery, finding the motion without merit, and noted that he may renew his arguments at summary judgment should discovery yield supporting evidence. Accordingly, the court overruled Defendant Ye's objections, denied the motion to dismiss, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 42. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 15, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LB0KDE from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Wenling Wang, Xiaona Zhou, Nan Zheng, Yun Ye, Qilong Liu, and Yurong Hu are represented by: Aleksander Boleslaw Milch, Esq. THE KASEN AND LIU LAW FIRM, PLLC Email: aleksander@kasenlawfirm.com The following Defendants appear pro se or have not listed counsel: Lei Zhu, Jingyi Shen, Lijun Ouyang, Xue Lin, Yuxia Hu, A Fei, Yuezhu Du, Yu Chen, Shuyun Chen, ASZ Supply Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-100. Plaintiffs Xin Yang and Ting Chen are represented by: Times Wang, Esq. FARRA & WANG PLLC Email: twang@farrawang.com Alexander Heckscher, Esq. Email: alex@heckscherlaw.com Counter Claimants Xiaona Zhou, Nan Zheng, Wenling Wang, Qilong Liu, and Yurong Hu are represented by: Aleksander Boleslaw Milch, Esq. THE KASEN AND LIU LAW FIRM, PLLC Email: aleksander@kasenlawfirm.com Counter Defendants Xin Yang and Ting Chen are represented by: Times Wang, Esq. FARRA & WANG PLLC Email: twang@farrawang.com Alexander Heckscher, Esq. Email: alex@heckscherlaw.com [] Virginia Governor Intends to Veto Proposed Class Action Bill --------------------------------------------------------------- www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com reports that on May 19, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger (D) indicated that she intends to veto SB 229, a pending bill which would have created a Virginia state court class action mechanism and would have modified the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) in critical ways. Governor Spanberger initially noted that she "approve[d] the general purpose of this bill," but returned it to the legislature with proposed amendments. In her statement released that same day, Governor Spanberger stated: "I support the General Assembly's goal of providing a class action mechanism that can be used by plaintiffs in Virginia courts. I offered amendments to ensure that when Virginia adopts its first-ever class action procedure, we do so in a tailored and judicious way -- building on longstanding, federal precedent while providing regional circuit courts an opportunity to develop expertise. The General Assembly did not accept these amendments." Even with the Governor's proposed amendments, the bill's measures to create a state court class action mechanism promised to make Virginia a significantly more attractive forum for consumer class action litigation. An Overview of SB 229 with Governor Spanberger's Proposed Amendments The proposed Virginia state court class action law was modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but was notably more plaintiff‑ (or plaintiff's counsel-) friendly in a few critical ways. The differences that would have remained even with Governor Spanberger's proposed amendments are described below. One notable difference was how the statute lowered the bar on what was required for class notice. Where Rule 23 mandates "the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances," SB 229 required only "reasonable notice." The softer standard could have effectively reduced the scope, quality, and cost of class notice programs. The statute also excluded express consideration of the method and timing of payment in class settlements from a state court's review. SB 229 further constrained trial‑court flexibility in ways that diverged from federal practice. It provided that procedural orders in class cases could be altered or amended only "under limited circumstances," without defining those limits. Rule 23, by contrast, assumes broad ongoing authority for district courts to manage and revise class‑related orders as a case evolves. SB 229 also changed the way dismissals of certified classes would be handled by requiring notice of a proposed dismissal of any case previously certified as a class action. This would have been an additional roadblock to early resolution of claims, and potentially increased judge reticence to early dismissal. SB 229 also would have altered the appellate landscape relative to Rule 23. While Rule 23(f) permits discretionary interlocutory appeal only from orders granting or denying class certification, SB 229 adopted a broader interlocutory appeal standard modeled on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b): any order could be appealed mid‑case if the trial court certified that it presented a controlling question of law, there was substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the termination of the litigation. The law would have also created a panel‑based transfer mechanism for multiple related class actions, and imposed a venue requirement that a class action could proceed in one of only four circuit courts (City of Richmond, City of Roanoke, Fairfax County, or City of Norfolk), based upon whichever court was geographically closest to any named class representative. Notably, unlike Rule 23, the proposed Virginia bill allowed attorneys' fees and costs to be requested at any time. The bill also modified the VCPA's damages provision to expressly state that it applies in a class action under the new law, but Governor Spanberger's proposed amendment limited the recovery in class actions to actual damages (as opposed to the VCPA's usual allowance for recovery of the greater of actual damages or $500 by a consumer who suffers a violation of the VCPA, or up to $1,000 for a willful violation). The bill with the Governor's proposed amendments would have required that the Supreme Court of Virginia amend its Rules to adopt Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 as the governing procedural rules for summary judgment in class actions under this new law, and to further state that Virginia's statutory bar against the use of deposition testimony in support of summary judgment would not apply in class actions. The bill provided that its provisions would have become effective on January 1, 2027. The Original Bill Prior to Governor Spanberger's Proposed Amendments The version of the law that passed the Virginia Assembly prior to Governor Spanberger's proposed amendments contained several additional differences from Rule 23 that would have created an even more plaintiff-friendly litigation environment. Most fundamentally, while the bill retained a traditional predominance requirement, it expressly instructed courts to consider "the practical ability of individual class members to pursue their claims without certification." Such language could be used to argue for a policy preference for class treatment where claims are small or impractical to bring individually -- something not found in Rule 23. Governor Spanberger struck this language in her proposed amendments. The original bill also did not include a venue requirement. It instead would have allowed plaintiffs to select local forums under general venue principles, including seeking courts perceived as more sympathetic, and would foreseeably have caused defendants to face overlapping cases in inconvenient or hostile venues without the centralization structures of the federal multi-district litigation mechanism. The original bill also would have significantly strengthened the VCPA by expressly eliminating the actual loss damages requirement, allowing recovery of statutory damages ($500/$1,000) on a class basis, and changing the available statutory damages to a "per violation" model rather than per consumer. Governor Spanberger's proposed amendments eliminated these changes. Lastly, the original bill did not include any of the changes discussed above to Virginia's procedures governing summary judgment. Continuing with Virginia's No-Class-Action Regime While the amendments proposed by Governor Spanberger would have tempered some of SB 229's more significant plaintiff-friendly attributes, it was still clear that the new Virginia state court class action mechanism and changes to the VCPA would have had a significant impact on consumer-facing businesses operating in Virginia, increasing both the likelihood of consumer litigation in Virginia state court as well as potential exposure and costs of defense in such litigation. With the veto of SB 229, that impact has been eliminated in several critical ways, including the following: The veto of SB 229 maintains the status quo for defendants in Virginia's state court system, which is a particularly important consideration for defendants already faced with broad nonsuit rights that allow for tolling and refiling of claims, the tendency of state-court judges to take summary judgment motions "under advisement" and instead require full trials, a lack of robust Daubert gatekeeping, uneven experience across local courts, a lack of clearly imputed, judicially imposed constraints existing in federal court (e.g., regarding ascertainability), and appellate structures that do not guarantee correction of adverse outcomes. Plaintiffs' attorneys will continue to craft putative class actions to satisfy the jurisdictional and procedural thresholds of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in order to secure a federal forum, often tailoring allegations about class size, amount in controversy, and minimal diversity primarily to gain access to a forum rather than advocating proof of genuine disputes. Plaintiffs bringing putative class actions must also satisfy the stricter Article III standing requirements of federal court, rather than rely on the more permissive defaults that often govern in state court, ensuring that each named plaintiff can demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and harm. Overall, the current framework fosters a more stable business and litigation environment, with clearer exposure, more manageable discovery, and a greater focus on truly injured parties and concrete disputes over state class actions. [GN] ********* 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 ***