260629.mbx

260629.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 29, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 128 Headlines 369 FLATBUSH: Supe Suit Seeks to Recover Proper OT Wages ACCENTURE LLP: Valerio Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. AGI CARGO: Mangrum Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ALBANY PARK: Agrees to Settle Deceptive Discount Suit Over $14.99MM ALL CHILDREN'S: Goudcher Sues Over Plan Investment Policy Statement ALM DISTRIBUTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Olive Oil ALUMINUM PRECISION: Agrees to $2MM ERISA Class Action Settlement AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Exceed Page Limits ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Suit Over Fruit Juice Drinks' False Ads ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Ford Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. AVERY DENNISON: Cunningham Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA BAYER AG: Battle Over $7.25BB Class Settlement Takes New Turn BLACKLANE NORTH: Misclassifies Limousine Drivers, Sodhi Says BLUE FISH PEDIATRICS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach BROOKLINEN INC: Faces Gilbert Suit Over Data-Collection Practices CARTER'S INC: Warner Files Suit in N.D. Georgia CBS STUDIOS INC: Tyson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHW GROUP: Sanchez Privacy Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. CLAY LABS: Faces Holdridge Class Suit Over Telemarketing Fraud CLEVELAND ELECTRIC: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Lee Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Madoff Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Scorpio Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COLE SYSTEMS: Faces Graziano Suit Over Illegal Background Check CONTACTPOINT360 LLC: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages CORAL WAY BELLS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property COSM HOLLYWOOD PARK: Young Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CROSSROADS ENTERPRISES: Chango Seeks Carpenters' Proper Wages CSX TRANSPORTATION: Trammell Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. DANONE CANADA: Court OKs Silk Beverage $7.5MM Class Settlement DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Green Files Suit in W.D. New York DELICATO VINEYARDS: Cardenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DIRECT FUNDING NOW: Cordero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California DISNEY DTC: Garcia Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. EAN HOLDINGS: Anderson Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ECOM DIALED LLC: Bogowitz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California EDGEWOOD SURGICAL: Sullivan Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ELEVANCE HEALTH: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ELITE FORCES LLC: Lopez Alleges Violations of the Labor Code EMBECTA CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 17 EMPOWER GROUP PARTNERS: Allsworth Files Suit in E.D. New York FAMILY FIRST LIFE: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIFTH THIRD: Laskaris Appeals Court Order to the Sup. Ct. of Ohio FLEET FEET: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FLORIDA: Fordice & Equal Protection Claims Revived in Denton FRAME LA BRANDS: Amerson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California GARFIELD BEACH CVS: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over S2 Smart Scales' False Ads GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Waterman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Arbitration & Dismissal Order to 3rd Cir. GLOBAL CAPITAL: Malinovskiy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GODFATHER DELI CORP: Elwadi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages GOOD DAY: CPC of Missouri Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Roberts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GREENFIELD'S MARKET: Cohen Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. GREENVILLE COUNTY: Appeals Reconsideration Order to 4th Circuit GSEM MANAGEMENT: Gorrin Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA GYMSHARK LTD: Class Action Targets Army of Fitness Influencers H. SOLIMAN MEDICAL: Casal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HEINSOHN INSURANCE: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California HICKORY FARMS: Wildman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HORIZON FAMILY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Arcidiacono Medicaid Class Suit Affirmed INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Chaffin Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. IPSWITCH INC: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadline IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cohen Says JACKPOCKET INTERACTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fa'agata Says JET AVIATION: Rogers Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. KALDI'S HOLDINGS: Guzman Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT: Casciani Sues Over Fuel Price Fixing Scheme LANDS' END: 2024 Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod LENOX CORP: Wildman Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bids for Summary Judgment in Ward Suit Due July 31 LOVELADY DIRECTIONAL: Rayner Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Arnel Says MARYLAND: 4th Cir. Rejects Class Certification Appeal in Palmer MDL 3166: Roblox Child Sexual Exploitation Suit Denied Transfer MERRICK BANK: 3rd Circuit Affirms Arbitration in Glover FCRA Suit MINNESOTA: Sued Over Improper Services Plans for Vulnerable Adults MISSOURI: Darrington Bid to Certify Classes Partly OK'd MUNCHKIN INC: Quintana Files Suit Over Mislabeled Lactation Cookies MV TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NANO-X IMAGING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 11 NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: July 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set NETWORKS INC: Parties Must Submit Class Cert Courtesy Copies NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE: Starzynski Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Remaining Claims in Sacerdote NEW YORK, NY: Parties Must Submit Status Letter by August 21 NEW YORK: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 28 NIKE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Caldwell & Dunn Cases NISSAN NORTH: Superina Balks at Unsafe, Defective Vehicles NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL: McFaddedn Suit Removed to D. Minn. NOVA SCOTIA: 25 Facility Residents Sue Over Solitary Confinement NY RIVERSIDE: Vasquez Action Referred to Magistrate Judge OAK VIEW: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Eisenberg Says OBSIDIAN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations OFFICE DEPOT: Parties in Yount Suit Must Submit Supplemental Brief OIYS MEDIA: Rodriguez Privacy Suit Removed to C. D. Cal. OTTER TAIL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit over PVC Pipe Pricing PACIFIC FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with Banner PENN MEDICINE: Whetstone Sues Over Unpaid Compensations READING INTERNATIONAL: Berryman Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification REGIONS BANK: Tate and Davis Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages REVLON CONSUMER: Mitchum Contains Fragrance, Flick Suit Alleges RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements of Trucks RL INVESTOR: Levine Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ROEHL TRANSPORT: Harris Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ROSS DRESS: Sears Labor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ROSS DRESS: Sears Suit Removed from Wash. Super. to W.D. Wash. RXO LAST: Mejia Must Submit Additional Briefing on Subclasses S3 HOLDING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SAGE COUNSELING: Prasad Files Suit Over Probation Extortion Scheme SALT OF THE EARTH: Faces Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal SANDISK CORP: Faces Bank Suit Over Flash Drive's Storage Capacity SANOFI-AVENTIS: Kirby Files False Ad Suit Over CoQ10 Product SHAKALAKA BAKERY: Ren Seeks Conditional Collective Certification SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Garcia Suit Over Digital Games Ownership SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Time Extension to File Replies Sought ST URBAN: Herrera Suit Seeks to Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL STABILITY AI: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 14, 2027 STELLA & DOT: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind STELLAE INTERNATIONAL: $387K Settlement in Rivas Gets Final Nod STEPHEN AUSTIN: Myers et al.'s Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice STEVE MADDEN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Deceptive Spam Emails STITCH FIX: $32MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24 SUNRISE COMMUNITIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sullivan Suit Says SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Debt Collection TEAM HEALTH: Buncombe County Seeks to Certify Class Action TEAM HEALTH: Plaquemine Seeks to Certify Class Action TEMU INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Spam Emails TEXAS: Appeals Injunction, Class Cert., & Denied Dismissal Order TRANSUNION LLC: Judge Certifies Sham Debt Collection Class Suit TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Lytle Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Noble Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Sawyer Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Wolf Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri TRYAX REALTY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Richiez Suit Due July 30 UNIFIN INC: Stallone Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois UNION PACIFIC: Fitness-for-Duty Policies Violates ADA, Suit Says UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Davis Due Jan. 22, 2027 UNITED PARCEL: Rietheimer Seeks to Certify Employee Class UNITED STATES VETERANS: Sawyer Files Suit in D. Massachusetts UNITED STATES: McCray Files Suit in D. Oregon UNITED STATES: Sabogal Wins Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus VIRGIN ISLANDS WAPA: Dismissal of KH Overbilling Class Suit Upheld VXN GROUP: Thoma Can File Class Exhibit Under Seal W6LS INC: 7th Circuit Affirms Arbitration Denial in Harris Suit WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Coleman Labor Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. WATERSTREET COMPANY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action WEST VIRGINIA: Standing Dismissal in Foster Care Class Suit Flipped WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Filing of Amended Complaint Due July 6 WP COMPANY LLC: Blink Files Suit in D.C. Super. Ct. XSOLIS INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Spencer-Harris Says ZILLOW GROUP: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ZUMBA FITNESS: Kueppers Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses ********* 369 FLATBUSH: Supe Suit Seeks to Recover Proper OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------- KERLY ANABELL PALATE SUPE, and GENOVEVA SARAI URRUTIA GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 369 FLATBUSH FOOD LLC d/b/a FLATBUSH MARKET, URTH MARKET LLC d/b/a MARKET ON KENT, and CHRISTIAN MOGA, and FLORIBERTO TORRES, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03316 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026), seeks to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiffs’ employment with the Defendants. During the relevant period, the Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours per week. However, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, Defendants failed to provide proper wage notices and wage statements. The 369 Flatbush Food LLC does business as Flatbush Market and operates as a produce and grocery store in Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 ACCENTURE LLP: Valerio Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as STOREY VALERIO, on behalf of other similarly situated employees of Defendants, Plaintiff v. ACCENTURE LLP and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CU022415C, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03488-AJB-DEB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts nine causes of action: (1) failure to pay all wages owed; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) paid sick leave violations; (4) untimely payment of wages; (5) wage statement violations; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) failure to reimburse business expenses; (8) unfair competition; and (9) unlawful employment condition. Accenture LLP provides management consulting and professional services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Anthony G. Ly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: aly@littler.com - and - Sophia B. Collins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: scollins@littler.com - and - Sarah R. Boxer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: sboxer@littler.com AGI CARGO: Mangrum Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DEVIN MANGRUM on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGI CARGO, LLC, a Florida Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV10367, was 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 June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06410 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts the eight causes of action on behalf of himself and a putative class: (1) failure to pay lawful wages; (2) failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to reimburse employee; expenses; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment (6) failure to timely pay wages at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and (8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. AGI Cargo, LLC engages in the operating and maintaining of airports and flying fields.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Marissa Alguire, Esq. Mojan Anari, Esq. Felipe Gomez, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 E-mail: marissa.alguire@akerman.com mojan.anari@akerman.com felipe.gomez@akerman.com ALBANY PARK: Agrees to Settle Deceptive Discount Suit Over $14.99MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports customers who made a purchase at www.AlbanyPark.com between June 21, 2020, and Oct. 31, 2024, may qualify to claim a $115 cash payment or store credit from a class action settlement. Edloe Finch LLC, d/b/a Albany Park, agreed to pay $14,993,930 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it deceptively advertised discounts and pricing on its website. the plaintiff claimed this violated California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law and California Unfair Competition Law. The settlement includes 130,382 class members. Who can file a claim? Class members are individuals who purchased one or more items from the Albany Park website between June 21, 2020, and Oct. 31, 2024. How much are settlement payments? -- Store credit voucher: Class members can receive a $115 voucher for store credit on the Albany Park website without filing a claim. Vouchers are one-time use, with no blackout dates, are transferrable and can be combined with other discounts. Class members can use only one voucher per transaction. and all vouchers will expire 18 months after activation date. -- Cash payment: Class members who do not wish to receive a store credit voucher can submit a claim for a $115 cash payment. How to claim a class action rebate Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive a store credit voucher. To receive a cash payment instead of a voucher, they must file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Chiechi v. Edloe Finch LLC, c/o CPT Group Inc., PO Box 19504, Irvine, CA 92623 The deadline to submit a claim for a cash payment is Aug. 18, 2026. Required claim information All class members must provide the CPT ID from the settlement notice they received. Online claimants must also provide the passcode from the same notice. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided (only option for claims submitted by mail) -- Store credit voucher emailed to the address on file with Albany Park Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $61,000 -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $1,500,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: $14,993,930 Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 18, 2026 -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 18, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 23, 2026 When is the Albany Park deceptive pricing settlement payout date? Albany Park will email store credit vouchers to eligible class members approximately 58 days after the court grants final approval. The settlement administrator will issue cash payments approximately 72 days after the final approval date. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit claimed Edloe Finch LLC, d/b/a Albany Park, engaged in deceptive advertising practices related to discounts and pricing on its website. The plaintiff alleged violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law and California Unfair Competition Law, as well as common law fraud and unjust enrichment. Albany Park denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $115 Deadline: August 18, 2026 [GN] ALL CHILDREN'S: Goudcher Sues Over Plan Investment Policy Statement ------------------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA GOUCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALL CHILDREN'S HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF ALL CHILDREN'S HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; TRANSAMERICA RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC; and CREATIVE PLANNING, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01781 (June 18, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other Plan participants, alleging that the Defendants failed to follow the Plans' Investment Policy Statement. According to the complaint, the Committee adopted an IPS governing both Plans in September 2020. It amended the Plans' IPS in May 2023 and September 2025. Each IPS identified the Plans' investment objectives and set criteria to consider in pursuing those objectives. Until September 2025, the IPS's objectives included "maximizing return within reasonable and prudent levels of risk," "providing returns comparable to similar investment options," and "controlling administrative and management costs." The IPS also provided criteria for selecting the right target date option to meet these objectives. It stated that Defendants should compare "how [a TDF's] asset allocation compares to industry standards for each age group." The Defendants chose assets that were incompatible with the IPS's objective. That is, they caused the Plans to retain the American Century TDFs from 2015-2025. Defendants knew these TDFs used an ultra-flat glide path that inhibited growth compared to peers. Plaintiff Tamara Goucher devoted her career to serving children in need at the Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital. Her employer, All Children's Health System, Inc., created two retirement plans for its employees. Both were governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1975 and managed by plan fiduciaries. These fiduciaries breached their duties under ERISA. They did so by constructing an investment menu that did not fit the plans' objectives, leading to massive lost savings for participants. The two plans at issue are the All Children's Health Systems, Inc. 403(b) Savings Plan (403(b) Plan) and the Retirement Plan for Employees of All Children's Health System, Inc. (401(a) Plan). In choosing investments, ERISA requires fiduciaries to act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" to be expected of a prudent fiduciary, id., section 1104(a)(1)(B). Each Defendant acted as a Plan fiduciary subject to these duties. All Children is the Plans' administrator and owner of All Children's Hospital. The hospital is a pediatric acute care provider affiliated with the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Over 6,000 current or former employees of the hospital participated in the Plans. After creating the Plans, All Children delegated its investment duties to an internal body, The Retirement Plan Committee of All Children's Health System, Inc. All Children also hired two external investment professionals. One was the Plans' investment manager, Transamerica Retirement Solutions, LLC. Transamerica also provided the Plans' recordkeeping and administrative (RKA) services. For the 403(b) Plan, All Children hired an investment advisor, Creative Planning, LLC. The Committee, Transamerica, and Creative are co-fiduciaries and proper Defendants. Plaintiff Tamara Goucher is a citizen and resident of Florida and is a participant in the 403(b) Plan. In reliance on the investment options offered by Defendants, Plaintiff invested her retirement savings in the American Century One Choice 2030 Class I TDF and the PIMCO Fund Class A. The Class Members consist of other plan participants in the Plans who, during the Class Period, held any of the American Century TDFs, the PIMCO Fund, or the Janus Triton Fund. 30. Defendant All Children is a corporation with its principal office located in Florida. All Children's primary facility is the All Children's Hospital, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. 31. Defendant the Committee is a committee appointed by All Children to assume investment responsibility as to the Plans. On information and belief, the Committee has no separate corporate existence from All Children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jimmy W. Mintz, Esq. James R. DeMay., Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 E-mail: jmintz@brysonpllc.com jdemay@brysonpllc.com ALM DISTRIBUTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Olive Oil ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Racconto Extra Virgin Olive Oil is deceptively marketed because it contains cheaper, refined oils, such as rapeseed oil. The 18-page false advertising lawsuit contends that Illinois grocery chain Jewel-Osco and ALM Distributors, which does business as Racconto, have misled consumers into paying a premium price for what is represented as pure extra virgin olive oil, even though independent lab testing has shown markers that indicate the presence of inferior oils, such as rapeseed oil, known more commonly as canola oil in the United States. Rapeseed oil is considered to be lower quality than extra virgin olive oil and, importantly, is sold at far lower prices, the filing notes. "Calling a product 'olive oil' when it contains any other non-olive oil is barred by an array of olive oil-making conventions, standard industry practices, international regulations, and federal laws," the suit summarizes. According to the complaint, federal and international bodies have established strict standards for labeling olive oil products to distinguish them from other oils. The lawsuit says these standards exist in part because olive oil is widely regarded as one of the healthiest, minimally processed cooking oils, which drives up consumer demand. In particular, the case references standards established by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the International Olive Oil Council (IOC), which define virgin olive oil as oil obtained solely from the olive plant using mechanical or physical means under conditions that do not alter the oil. The complaint further notes that several authorities require a product containing more than a "negligible" amount of other oils to be labeled such that the presence of the other oils is disclosed. The suit argues that Racconto has sought to capitalize on the "financial incentive" to dilute olive oil with cheaper alternatives while continuing to market the product as extra virgin olive oil. The accusations in the suit stem from independent testing at an IOC-recognized laboratory in Spain in April 2026. According to the complaint, tested samples of Racconto's olive oil contained high levels of brassicasterol and campesterol, two sterols that are not found in excess in virgin olive oil, indicating that the product is adulterated. The lawsuit claims that these test markers do not appear by "happenstance" and instead signal that the product is not pure olive oil as represented. Despite the alleged presence of refined oils, the suit says that Racconto's product contains no disclosure indicating that it contains anything other than pure extra virgin olive oil. According to the complaint, this has allowed the manufacturers to command the price premium associated with authentic extra virgin olive oil while exploiting consumers' reliance on product labeling. "Defendants' misbranding is intentional," the filing asserts. "Any reasonable quality-control check would detect the presence of rapeseed oil." The Racconto olive oil class action lawsuit looks to represent all natural persons who purchased the Racconto "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] ALUMINUM PRECISION: Agrees to $2MM ERISA Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former employees who participated in the Aluminum Precision Products employee stock ownership plan at any point since March 27, 2018, may be eligible to receive a payment from a class action settlement. Aluminum Precision Products Inc. agreed to pay $2 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging improper management of the plan's other investments account in violation of certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Who is eligible to receive an ERISA payout? Class members are participants and beneficiaries of the Aluminum Precision Products employee stock ownership plan at any time since March 27, 2018, including individuals who currently have an account in the plan and those who previously had an account in the plan. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata payment: Eligible class members will receive a pro rata payment from the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by comparing each member's average account balance in the plan's other investment account to the average balance of all class member accounts. No claim form required Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive a settlement payment. Former plan participants who want to have their settlement payment deposited into an IRA or other eligible retirement plan account can file a rollover form online by providing their claimant ID and last name or print the PDF rollover form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Aluminum Precision Products Inc. ESOP Class Action Settlement Administrator, PO Box 64053, Saint Paul, MN 55164 The rollover form deadline is Sept. 2, 2026. Payout options -- Current participants will receive a direct deposit into their plan account. -- Former participants who submit a rollover form will receive a direct deposit into the designated IRA or eligible retirement account. -- Former participants who do not submit a rollover form will receive a check mailed to the address on file. Settlement fund breakdown The $2,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Independent fiduciary fee: Up to $20,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $666,666.67 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Rollover form deadline: Sept. 2, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: Sept. 16, 2026 When is the Aluminum Precision Products ESOP settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members approximately four months after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed the ESOP committee of the Aluminum Precision Products Inc. employee stock ownership plan failed to properly manage the plan's other investments account, violating ERISA. APP denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation. [GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Exceed Page Limits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VINCENZETTI and ALICIA GRUMET, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02681-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion for leave to exceed page limits for their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to file their motion for class certification at a total of twenty-five pages, excluding the cover page, table of contents, signature block, and certificate of service. The Defendant will not be prejudiced if the Court grants this Motion, and the Plaintiffs do not bring this Motion for any improper purpose. This case is a complex action that involves extensive facts and several legal issues that require full briefing. Indeed, the Parties have completed over 10 depositions, retained experts, and evaluated significant electronic data. To present full and complete briefing to the Court regarding the facts of this case, the legal issues involved, and the merits of class certification additional pages are needed. This lawsuit is a putative class action alleging that Amazon should have paid its employees for the time spent off the clock as a result of the COVID-19 symptom screenings and exit screenings. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dNBV0i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com - and - Alexander N. Hood, Esq. David H. Seligman, Esq. Brianne M. Power, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org david@towardsjustice.org brianne@towardsjustice.org - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Suit Over Fruit Juice Drinks' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that certain Arizona teas and fruit juice drinks are falsely advertised as all natural despite containing several synthetic ingredients. The 22-page lawsuit claims that Arizona Beverages represents its Arizona tea products (including the Blueberry White Tea, Black & White Tea, Iced Tea with Lemon Flavor, Iced Tea with Peach Flavor, Real Brewed Sweet Tea and Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey varieties) and fruit juice cocktail products (including the Fruit Punch, Mucho Mango, Watermelon, Kiwi Strawberry and Pineapple flavors) as "100% Natural" or "All Natural." The suit argues, however, that these representations are false and misleading as each product allegedly contains at least one of the following synthetic, non-natural ingredients: -- Citric acid; -- Ascorbic acid; -- Malic acid; -- Phosphoric acid; -- Vitamin E acetate; -- Sodium selenite; -- Ester gum; and/or -- High fructose corn syrup. The lawsuit claims that each of these ingredients has been artificially produced through industrial processing, fermentation, petrochemical synthesis or chemical modification and is therefore considered synthetic rather than natural. Per the case, even if a consumer thoroughly examines the ingredients list, they do not have the means to determine whether certain ingredients are natural or synthetic—particularly ingredients such as citric acid, which occurs naturally in some fruits and vegetables—as the ingredients list does not specify the manufacturing process for each ingredient. Nevertheless, reasonable consumers are "not expected or required to scour the ingredients list on the back of the [p]roducts to confirm or debunk the prominent 'natural' claims and representations on the rest of the label," the lawsuit argues. Per the filing, Arizona knows that consumers have become increasingly concerned with the effects of synthetic ingredients and are willing to pay more for what they perceive to be higher-quality, "all natural" products. Arizona's false advertisement of its tea and fruit juice products as "all natural" or "100% natural" takes advantage of this common preference for "natural" food products in order to increase sales and charge higher prices, the case alleges. The lawsuit claims consumers were deceived into thinking that the Arizona tea and juice products were natural and would not have purchased them, or been willing to pay as much, had they known the drinks contained synthetic ingredients. The false advertising lawsuit claims Arizona has violated the California Health and Safety Code and federal food labeling regulations, which state that a food product is considered misbranded when the "label is false or misleading in any particular." The Arizona Beverages class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in California who, within the past four years and until a class is notified, purchased any of the above-mentioned Arizona products for personal or household use. [GN] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Ford Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DAVID FORD and IVETTE ARCHILA, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV428735, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Lake, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05657 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant labels and advertises Arizona Tea and Arizona Fruit Juice Cocktails as being "natural," "100% Natural" and/or "All Natural" when they contain synthetic, non-natural ingredients. The Plaintiff seeks a judgment for damages and injunctive relief along with other legal or equitable remedies. Arizona Beverages USA is a producer of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks based in Woodbury, New York.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tyler R. Dowdall, Esq. Renata A. Guidry, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1104 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 330-8580 (424) 425-7486 Facsimile: (315) 512-1465 E-mail: tdowdall@tarterkrinsky.com rguidry@tarterkrinsky.com AVERY DENNISON: Cunningham Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- AARON CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-01396 (N.D. Ohio, June 18, 2026) is a Collective Action Complaint against Avery for its failure to pay its employees overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employees. During their employment, Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s) during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its facility in Painesville, Ohio, as an hourly, non-exempt employee as defined in the FLSA in the role of Machine Operator from 2012 to late 2024. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or manages more than sixteen manufacturing facilities across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com BAYER AG: Battle Over $7.25BB Class Settlement Takes New Turn ------------------------------------------------------------- Carey Gillam of The New Lede, reports that a federal judge has rejected efforts to slow the progress of a $7.25 billion class action settlement in the nationwide Roundup cancer litigation, notching a win for Roundup maker Bayer but frustrating a group of plaintiffs' attorneys who claim the deal is unfair to cancer patients. The order handed down Wednesday, June 17, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, sends the settlement back to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, where it had been progressing quickly toward final approval before being abruptly removed from St. Louis to the federal court by the objecting attorneys last month. US District Judge Edward Autrey said the case was improperly moved to federal court and thus must be sent back to St. Louis. The order support efforts by Bayer, the German owner of the former Monsanto Co., to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits brought by people who claim they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) from exposure to Monsanto's Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides. Bayer has been mired in costly litigation since buying Monsanto in 2018, and has paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury awards. Bayer announced the class action settlement in coordination with a group of supporting plaintiffs' attorneys in February and quickly received preliminary approval from the St. Louis judge. The settlement drew immediate objections from other plaintiffs' attorneys who have been fighting to kill or alter the deal. The objecting attorneys and other critics say the structure of the class action settlement is a sweetheart deal that provides a rich payout of $675 million in fees to the lawyers who put the deal with Bayer together and are helping promote the deal, but provides paltry payments for the cancer sufferers who make up the class. The settlement would include people currently suing the company and also Roundup users who develop NHL in the future. Moreover, Bayer could continue selling the products without cancer warnings, helping "free one of the Nation's most notorious, long-term polluters from jury trials and real liability for their misdeeds," according to one court filing by objectors. In contrast, the lawyers who put the deal together with Bayer say it is the best path forward for plaintiffs because without the deal the plaintiffs could be caught indefinitely in a backlog of thousands of cases and never receive any compensation. The threat of a company bankruptcy is also a real possibility, the lawyers supporting the deal have warned. "We move forward and will not stop until every Roundup victim who has waited far too long finally gets the justice they deserve." -- Christopher Seeger, plaintiffs' attorney One of those lawyers, Christopher Seeger, criticized the objecting plaintiffs' attorneys for interfering in the deal, issuing a statement following the June 17 order returning the case to St. Louis. "These objectors . . . have thrown every procedural obstacle they could find at a $7.25 billion settlement, one of the largest class recoveries in US history," Seeger said. "We move forward and will not stop until every Roundup victim who has waited far too long finally gets the justice they deserve." Bayer issued a statement following the court order, saying the "decision brings much needed clarity to all parties and will enable the class approval process to continue to move forward." "Monsanto remains confident that the class settlement, which is supported by plaintiffs' counsel representing tens of thousands of potential class members, is fair to all parties and the objections have no merit," the company said. But Ashley Keller, one of the attorneys objecting to the class action settlement and the one who got the case removed from St. Louis City to federal court last month, immediately filed an appeal of the order. Keller hopes to keep the case in federal court, because the federal judge overseeing the Roundup "multidistrict" litigation since 2016 has publicly stated his disapproval of the settlement, calling it a "filthy" deal. Along with Keller, several other plaintiffs' lawyers representing Roundup plaintiffs are on record with their objections to the class action settlement. Objections have been lodged on behalf of people who are currently suing the company over cancer claims, as well as a "futures class" of people who do not currently have cancer but may develop it in the future only to find their legal options restricted by the terms of the settlement. Even though someone with Roundup exposure might not show NHL symptoms until a years from now, and even if that person has strong evidence that Roundup exposure caused the cancer, if that person did not opt out of the proposed settlement by June 4 of this year, that person would be "bound by the Settlement's terms from now into the 2040s," objecting attorneys stated in a recent court filing. In a separate strategy aimed at ending the Roundup litigation, Bayer has asked the US Supreme Court to rule that it should be protected from lawsuits alleging it failed to warn Roundup users of a cancer risk. The company argues that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, juries in state courts cannot hold the company liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists and has not required such a warning. The EPA's position is that glyphosate is "unlikely" to be carcinogenic. The court heard arguments in the case in April. A ruling is expected any day. [GN] BLACKLANE NORTH: Misclassifies Limousine Drivers, Sodhi Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SURENDER SODHI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and HARJEET SINGH and JASBIR SINGH, in their capacities as Private Attorneys General Representatives, Plaintiffs v. BLACKLANE NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-05613 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members are limousine drivers for Blacklane in California. Notwithstanding Blacklane's classification of Plaintiffs and Class Members as independent contractors or non-employees, they have in fact been Blacklane employees under California law, notes the complaint. By misclassifying Plaintiffs and other Class Members as independent contractors or non-employees (i.e., simply users of a software platform), Blacklane has unlawfully avoided paying them proper wages, business expenses, overtime wages, and providing them other benefits in violation of California law. Blacklane has also violated California law by withholding gratuities from Plaintiffs and other Class Members and by imposing monetary penalties on Plaintiffs and Class Members in the form of unlawful deductions from their wages, asserts the suit. Blacklane North America Inc. is a transportation company that provides limousine services across the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com BLUE FISH PEDIATRICS: 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 Blue Fish Pediatrics data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Blue Fish Pediatrics data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Blue Fish Pediatrics Security Incident: What Happened? Blue Fish Pediatrics, with eight Texas locations, has reported a data breach affecting 41,485 Texas residents. According to an online notice, an investigation and document review determined on May 4, 2026 that an unauthorized party breached Blue Fish Pediatrics' computer systems between July 11 and July 17, 2025 and accessed or acquired certain files. The data contained in the potentially accessed files includes personal information such as names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and driver's license and/or state ID numbers. Health information that may have been exposed in the Blue Fish Pediatrics data breach spans medical record numbers, diagnoses/conditions, lab results, medication information, healthcare claims information, and clinical/treatment information. Blue Fish Pediatrics began notifying those who may have been impacted by mail on June 17, 2026. What You Can Do After the Blue Fish Pediatrics Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Blue Fish Pediatrics 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 Blue Fish Pediatrics 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] BROOKLINEN INC: Faces Gilbert Suit Over Data-Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA GILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BROOKLINEN, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03697 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) alleges that the Defendant invaded the Plaintiff's fundamental rights to privacy and fraudulently misrepresented the data-collection practices of its website, www.brooklinen.com by facilitating the Tracking Entities' unlawful interception of and intrusion into Plaintiff's Sensitive Information in violation of the federal Wiretap Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Website begins placing and transmitting cookies and other third-party tracking technologies (the Tracking Tools) capable of transmitting users' data the moment users visit the Website, before they can interact with the Cookie Banner or select their preferences in the Cookie Settings. Worse still, even after users affirmatively reject all non-necessary cookies, the Website continues to utilize and deploy Tracking Tools which transmit users' data to the advertising, social media, and analytics companies that designed and operate the Tracking Tools, including Facebook, TikTok, Google, Microsoft, Pinterest, Snapchat, and Reddit (the Tracking Entities), says the suit. Brooklinen owns, operates, and controls the website which it operates an online retail platform offering bedding, bath, loungewear, home décor, and related household products, processes consumer purchases, manages customer accounts and promotional programs, and provides product, pricing, and related content to consumers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Mark Jensen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mjensen@zlk.com CARTER'S INC: Warner Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carter's Inc. The case is styled as Melissa Warner, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carter's Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03246-AT (N.D. Ga., June 10, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Carter's, Inc. -- https://www.carters.com/ -- is a major American designer and marketer of children's apparel.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andre Robert Belanger, Esq. GO BIG INJURY LAW 1 Glenlake Parkway NE, Suite 650 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Phone: (800) 777-7777 Email: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com CBS STUDIOS INC: Tyson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBS Studios Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alaya Jenae Tyson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CBS Studios Inc., CBS/CTS Inc., Entertainment Partners Enterprises LLC, Paramount Global, Case No. 26STCV18847 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." CBS Studios, Inc. -- https://www.cbs.com/ -- is an American television production company which is a subsidiary of the CBS Entertainment Group unit of Paramount Skydance Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law CHW GROUP: Sanchez Privacy Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ALICIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHW GROUP, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 26CU023493C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03505-AJB-JLB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action, all based on alleged spam emails: (1) violation of California's so-called "Anti-Spam" statute under California Business and Professions Code; (2) violation of California's "Trap and Trace" statute which is part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; and (3) a common law intrusion upon seclusion claim. CHW Group, Inc. , d/b/a CHPROMOTION.COM is a home service contract provider founded in 2008. It covers residential systems and appliances that fail due to wear and tear.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: John W. McGuinness, Esq. Patrice Ruane, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: JMcGuinness@manatt.com PRuane@manatt.com CLAY LABS: Faces Holdridge Class Suit Over Telemarketing Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM HOLDRIDGE, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. CLAY LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-02740 (D. Colo., June 18, 2026) seeks statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief from Clay Labs for violations of the Colorado Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. Accordingly, Clay Labs provides access to its directory of profiles for a subscription fee and uses the directory for marketing subscription sales. In other words, Clay Labs uses its directory, and the lists of cellular telephone numbers contained therein, for commercial purposes. The Plaintiff and the Class have no relationship with Clay Labs. More importantly, the Plaintiff and the Class never provided Clay Labs with affirmative consent to list their cellular telephone numbers in its directory. Despite failing to obtain affirmative consent from Plaintiff and the Class, Clay Labs nevertheless listed their cellular telephone numbers in its directory for commercial purposes in violation of PTFA, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action seeking an order (i) declaring that Clay Labs' conduct violates PTFA, (ii) requiring that Clay Labs cease the unlawful activities described herein; and (iii) awarding Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages in the amount of at least $300 and not more than $500. Clay Labs is a New York-based technology company incorporated in Delaware that operates an AI-powered go-to market data and workflow automation platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: psolberg@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com CLEVELAND ELECTRIC: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Marshall Anderson, individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC COMPANY Case No. 1:26-cv-03292-TWT (N.D. Ga., June 12, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration--for all hours they work over 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees recorded hours for so-called "meal periods" (the Defendant's "auto deduct policy"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees are not compensated for that time. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal periods. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to remain on-duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts and regularly subjects them to work interruptions during unpaid "meal periods." Likewise, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to clock in and out for their shifts via its timekeeping system but the Defendant automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to reflect only their prescheduled shifts, for its own primary benefit and to these employees' detriment (the Defendant's "rounding policy"). The Defendant's auto-deduct policy and rounding policy violate the FLSA and SCPWA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed Anderson as an electrician CE3 from October 2025 to January 2026. Cleveland touts itself as a specialty contractor with "the knowledge and expertise to provide a range of specialty services throughout every phase of your projects from planning through execution and ongoing service."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30303-1007 Phone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Lee Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shannon Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02444 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00923-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Ste N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: lverderame@edelson-law.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Madoff Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ray Madoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02634 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00925-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. FINKELSTEIN AND THOMPSON 1050 30th Street, N.W. Duvall Foundry Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 337-8000 Fax: (202) 337-8090 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Scorpio Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lisa Scorpio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-19027 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00920-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Michael Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3361 Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com COLE SYSTEMS: Faces Graziano Suit Over Illegal Background Check --------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE GRAZIANO, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COLE SYSTEMS GROUP INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00971 (D. Conn., June 18, 2026) is a class action against Cole pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendant produces background screening and other consumer reports for end users for employment purposes for a fee. The consumer reports produced by the Defendant contain items which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment. The Defendant knows it must comply with the FCRA in producing and providing consumer reports. In January of 2026, the Plaintiff applied for employment with an end user, Penske Automative Group. According to the complaint, a written agreement addressing the production of consumer reports exists between Defendant and Penske which requires Defendant to produce reports that comply with the FCRA. On January 29, 2026, the Defendant provided Penske with a consumer report concerning Plaintiff for employment purposes. In early February of 2026, Plaintiff was offered employment with Penske. The Plaintiff's job offer was subsequently withdrawn after Penske received a copy of the Consumer Report produced by Defendant. The Consumer Report produced by Defendant is misleading and inaccurate. Plaintiff's Consumer Report reports two distinct felony criminal cases from San Diego County, California in 2013. The Plaintiff did not have two distinct felony cases in San Diego County in 2013, the suit contends. The need for consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures to ensure that the information they disseminate is accurate, up-to-date, and furnished only to users for legally permissible purposes is more critical than ever. Today, approximately three billion consumer credit reports are issued annually in the United States. Moreover, every month, credit reporting agencies receive roughly 1.3 billion updates regarding 200+ million consumer files—an average of fifteen changes per file. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiff Kyle Graziano was the subject of a consumer report produced by Defendant for employment purposes. Cole, a Houston, Texas-based consumer reporting agency as defined by the FCRA, is engaged in the business of producing consumer reports for employment purposes. Accordingly, the Defendant has produced more than 5,000 consumer reports for employment purposes in the past two years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Zane Johnson, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor, No. 16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 280-4201 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: zjohnson@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com CONTACTPOINT360 LLC: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Jorge Martinez and Melissa Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONTACTPOINT360, LLC, Case No. 7:26-cv-00278 (S.D. Tex., June 11, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid wages. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its CSRs for all hours worked, including off the-clock work performed before and after scheduled shifts when employees were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. As a result of these unlawful timekeeping procedures, CSRs were not paid for all overtime hours worked. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the substantial off-the-clock time they spent turning on and booting up their computers and necessary programs before clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system, and shutting down those programs and applications after clocking out, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in its Pharr, Texas call center as a Customer Service Representative from September 2023 to February 2024. ContactPoint360 is a global business-process outsourcing and customer experience firm that provides customer service, technical support, sales, and back-office operations for companies across many industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Fax: (248) 746-4001 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com jrusch@sommerspc.com - and - Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 381-2224 Fax: (615) 994-8625 Email: alyson@hsglawgroup.com CORAL WAY BELLS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. CORAL WAY BELLS, LLC and TACO BELL OF AMERICA, LLC D/B/A TACO BELL #042909, Case No. 1:26-cv-24120-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property, and commercial fast-food restaurant within to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property, and commercial fast-food restaurant within the subject property in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property, and commercial fast-food restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property, and commercial fast-food restaurant have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and commercial fast-food restaurant business, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial plaza property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. CORAL WAY BELLS, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, including the parking areas, walkways and all areas open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com COSM HOLLYWOOD PARK: Young Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cosm Hollywood Park LLC. The case is styled as Dominique Young, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Cosm Hollywood Park LLC, Case No. 26STCV18656 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cosm -- https://www.cosm.com/ -- is a global leader in experiential media and immersive technology.[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 CROSSROADS ENTERPRISES: Chango Seeks Carpenters' Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Francli David Tuapanta Chango and Ricardo Zavala Quezada, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Crossroads Enterprises Northeast Inc., Jamel Contracting Inc, Green US Construction LLC, Henry Genaro Maldonado, and Paul Rodriguez, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03343 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants classified Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated current and former employees, as non-exempt from overtime. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs any wages at all for the work they performed for most weeks during their employment, says the suit. Plaintiffs Chango and Quezada were employed by Defendants at their construction companies as carpenters from November 9, 2025 until the second week of January 2026 and from November 6, 2025 until January 26, 2026, respectively. Headquartered in Hopewell Junction, NY, Crossroads Enterprises Northeast Inc. offers construction materials and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Diana Seo, Esq. SEO LAW GROUP, PLLC 136-68 Roosevelt Ave., Suite 726 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 500-3340 E-mail: diana@seolawgroup.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Trammell Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as CURTIS TRAMMELL, CHRISTOPHER BRYANT CRABTREE, CYNTHIA DEMOTT, DAVID DEMOTT, ARCHIE PARSLEY, CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, RAINBOW RIVER KAYAK ADVENTURES, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., FLORIDA NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, LLC, and TRACK LINE RAIL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26-CA-00407-AX, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00419-JSS-PRL to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that Track Line "owned thousands of creosote-treated railroad ties that burned in the Railroad Tie Fire" on property that was "owned by Defendant CSX and leased by Defendant Florida Northern." The Plaintiffs further allege that the Railroad Tie Fire resulted in "contamination of, and exposure to, toxic smoke, noxious odors, massive amounts of carcinogenic volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds . . . and other toxic chemicals and combustible materials." The amended complaint brings eight separate claims against Defendants for (i) negligence, (ii) strict liability under Florida's Water Quality Assurance Act, (iii) private nuisance, (iv) public nuisance, (v) trespass, (vi) trespass to chattels, (vii) medical monitoring, and (viii) intentional misconduct/gross negligence. CSX Transportation, Inc. provides transportation services. The Company offers rail-based transportation services including traditional rail service.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David M. Wells, Esq. Lauren V. Purdy, Esq. Rebecca A. Maturo, Esq. GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A. 1 Independent Drive, Suite 2300 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5185 Telephone: (904) 354-1980 Facsimile: (904) 354-2170 E-mail: dwells@gunster.com lpurdy@gunster.com rmaturo@gunster.com - and - Mark J. Criser, Esq. Steven L. Cline, Esq. HILL WARD & HENDERSON, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-3900 Facsimile: (813) 221-2900 E-mail: mark.criser@hwhlaw.com steve.cline@hwhlaw.com DANONE CANADA: Court OKs Silk Beverage $7.5MM Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Rabinovitch of Global News reports that consumers may be entitled to a piece of a $7.5-million dollar settlement if they consumed some recalled Silk brand plant-based beverages that were part of a deadly listeria outbreak in 2024. Those who want to file a claim, and potentially receive a share of the settlement, have until Oct. 16, 2026, to submit. The class-action lawsuit was launched against Danone Canada, a subsidiary of Danone SA, a global food and beverage firm, following a listeria outbreak in 2024 that lead to the deaths of three people, with dozens of others reporting being sickened and hospitalized. It was traced back to a line of plant-based refrigerated beverages, which were believed to be the source of the outbreak. The beverages were sold under the Silk and Great Value brands and may have included some almond, oat, coconut, cashew or a combination of flavours. Listeria is a bacteria that can be found in the environment and can cause illness known as listeriosis when eating food or drinking water that has been contaminated with the bacteria, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. The agency says there were 20 reported illnesses, 15 hospitalizations and three deaths from symptoms believed to have been related to consuming the contaminated beverages in 2024. Details of the settlement were made public Friday, June 19, in a release, which says the national settlement was approved in the Superior Court of Quebec in April on behalf of Canadians who purchased or ingested products under the recall initiated by Danone Canada on July 8, 2024. Some of those people, the release said, suffered "physical and/or psychological harm." The defendants in the case, which includes Danone Canada, "deny all allegations and deny any wrongdoing or liability," according to the settlement notice. Here's how to file a claim and how much could be paid out. How to submit a claim Those who want to submit a claim can do so online via the settlement website. When submitting a claim, there is a detailed form to fill out, and the claim requires supporting evidence that matches the level of compensation, or payout, that each claim is relevant to. This means, depending on the severity of illness or harm otherwise experienced from consuming the product, the required supporting evidence will vary, as will the amount of money being compensated according to an included compensation grid. In some of the more minor cases, claimants may need to provide proof of purchase of the recalled product or make a declaration of the purchase and consumption of the product, as well as make a declaration attesting to their physical and/or psychological impacts from consuming the recalled products. For more severe cases, claimants may also need to include detailed medical and other records. How much you could receive There are six levels of compensation available depending on the claim submitted, and range from a $400 payout and up to $300,000. In most cases, those submitting a claim could receive between $400 and $7,000 if they consumed the recalled product and developed a physical illness consistent with listeriosis and/or a psychological disorder from exposure to the recalled product but were not hospitalized as a result. The amount of compensation increases depending how long these claimant had symptoms for. In the case of the minimum compensation level, a person may qualify if they experienced symptoms consistent with listeriosis that lasted up to 48 hours following the consumption of the recalled product, and/or developed symptoms consistent with a psychological disorder caused by exposure from the recalled product. For the $7,000 payout, claimants would have experienced symptoms lasting more than one week. Some symptoms listed for illness consistent with listeriosis in the compensation grid include vomiting, nausea, fever, cramps, diarrhea, constipation, muscle aches, headache, neck stiffness, confusion, and loss of balance. The documents say claimants may qualify if they consumed the recalled product, and then developed symptoms consistent with a psychological disorder caused by exposure to the same product. This includes symptoms that are "more acute than upset, disgust, anxiety, insomnia or agitation." For more serious cases of illness and psychological harm, hospitalizations and even death may have occurred for some individuals. If someone consumed the recalled product, and developed physical and/or psychological symptoms consistent with listeriosis and ended up in the hospital, the minimum they may receive is up to $30,000 if they did not develop complications or permanent symptoms. For those that were hospitalized similar to the previous example, if they did develop severe complications and/or permanent symptoms, they could receive up to $150,000. If the illness or symptoms otherwise resulted in death, as was the case for three individuals, their estates and/or beneficiaries may be entitled to up to $300,000. [GN] DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Green Files Suit in W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delaware North Companies, Incorporated. The case is styled as Damia Green, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delaware North Companies, Incorporated, Case No. 6:26-cv-06611 (W.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Delaware North -- https://www.delawarenorth.com/ -- is one of the largest privately owned hospitality companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Scott King, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT KING 650 Clinton Square, Suite 250 Rochester, NY 14604 Phone: (585) 270-8882 Email: rking@robertkinglawfirm.com DELICATO VINEYARDS: Cardenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delicato Vineyards, LLC. The case is styled as Adan Cardenas, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons v. Delicato Vineyards, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0005419 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Delicato Family Wines -- https://www.delicato.com/ -- is one of the fastest growing wine companies in the world with nearly a century of history crafting superior quality wines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: nick@bamlawca.com DIRECT FUNDING NOW: Cordero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Funding Now LLC. The case is styled as Douglas Javier Cordero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Direct Funding Now LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01518 (C.D. Cal., June 14, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Direct Funding Now -- https://www.directfundingnow.com/ -- provides multiple financing options to small businesses and for business owners to have access to credit and lower the cost of borrowing like traditional banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com DISNEY DTC: Garcia Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled MYLES GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISNEY DTC LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV185200, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05659 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that a Disney owned and operated website -- www.nationalgeographic.com -- uses trackers to collect customer information for analytics and advertising purposes without consent. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Disney violated: (1) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (2) the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (3) the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; (4) the California Constitution; and (5) California's Unfair Competition Law. Disney DTC LLC is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company that operates major direct-to-consumer streaming services, including Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca B. Durrant, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (212) 808-7551 Facsimile: (213) 547-4901 EAN HOLDINGS: Anderson Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as NICHOLAS G. ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. EAN HOLDINGS, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-15359-1 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02052 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts three claims for relief under the Revised Code of Washington: (1) failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; and (3) failure to pay overtime wages. EAN Holdings, LLC is the operating and legal name for the subsidiary that manages the fleet and daily operations of Enterprise Holdings, Inc.[BN] Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC is represented by: Farron D. Curry, Esq. Elisabeth F.M. Read, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 600-6650 E-mail: farron.curry@bclplaw.com elisabeth.read@bclplaw.com ECOM DIALED LLC: Bogowitz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecom Dialed LLC. The case is styled as Michael Allen Bogowitz, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Ecom Dialed LLC doing business as Tik Tok Whiz, Case No. 2:26-cv-02138-DC-SCR (E.D. Cal., June 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ecom Dialed LLC -- https://www.ecomdialed.com/ -- is a U.S.-based e-commerce education and consulting company headquartered in Sheridan, Wyoming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com EDGEWOOD SURGICAL: Sullivan Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edgewood Surgical Hospital Pain Management LLC. The case is styled as Katharine Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edgewood Surgical Hospital Pain Management LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01262 (W.D. Pa., June 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Edgewood Surgical Hospital -- https://edgewoodsurgical.com/ -- is a medical facility located in Transfer, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Mitchell and Jill Haynes individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-01243-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 11, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law, Missouri Minimum Wage Law and for common law claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Defendant knew or should have known how long it takes CSRs to complete their off-the-clock work, and Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and Class for this work, but did not. The Defendant knew or should have known that CSRs, including Plaintiffs, worked overtime hours for which they were not compensated. Additionally, despite both state and federal law clearly requiring overtime premiums to be paid for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, Defendant often failed to pay overtime premiums for recorded hours worked in excess of forty and instead unjustifiably paid CSRs at their regular rate for overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as CSRs. Elevance is one of the largest for-profit health insurers in the United States and operates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com ELITE FORCES LLC: Lopez Alleges Violations of the Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ HERIBERTO VALENZUELA LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees, and the general public, Plaintiff v. ELITE FORCES LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; RED ROCK TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Nevada Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV17548 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately April 24, 2025, through October 13, 2025. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees regularly performed work before and after their scheduled work hours and were not properly paid. In addition, they were required to perform inspections on company vehicles after they had already clocked out and were not paid for the time spent performing these additional duties, says the suit. Headquartered in California, Elite Forces LLC operates a recruitment agency specializing in commercial trucking, warehouse operations, and construction trades. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradely@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com EMBECTA CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Embecta Corp. (NASDAQ: EMBC) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Embecta securities between November 25, 2025 and May 4, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/EMBC. Embecta Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1. Embecta knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company's guidance was misleading and unattainable. In fact, Embecta touted the Company's pen needle business as "incredibly resolute" mere weeks prior to missing expectations and cutting 2026 fiscal guidance. 2. On May 5, 2026, Embecta published second quarter 2026 fiscal results disclosing that the Company failed to meet its guidance for second quarter 2026 and lowered fiscal year 2026 guidance. In particular, Embecta revealed that revenue declined over 14%, much higher than the guidance of flat to a decline of 2% and that the Company was lowering estimates on US performance, largely in part due to weakness in its pen needle sales. 3. 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. What's Next for Embecta Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/EMBC. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Embecta you have until August 17, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Embecta Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Embecta Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] EMPOWER GROUP PARTNERS: Allsworth Files Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empower Group Partners Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Allsworth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Empower Group Partners Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03442 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Empower Group Partners Inc. -- https://www.empower.com/ -- is a financial services and business lending firm headquartered in Long Island City, New York..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah Marie D. De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com FAMILY FIRST LIFE: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Family First Life LLC. The case is styled as Edgar Ray Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Family First Life LLC, Integrity, LLC, Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26CV192817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 8, 2026). Family First Life -- https://familyfirstlife.com/ -- is an insurance marketing organization who partners with the top insurance carriers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda, 15th Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Email: Jon@lebelaw.com FIFTH THIRD: Laskaris Appeals Court Order to the Sup. Ct. of Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- LORI LASKARIS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Lori Laskaris, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, Case Nos. 24-3955, 24-3974, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case type is stated as Certified Question of State Law. The appellate case is styled as William R. Klopfenstein and Lori Laskaris, Daniel Laskaris, Brian C. Harrison, Janet Fyock, Adam McKinney, Donald E. Adanich, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 26-0710, in the Supreme Court of Ohio, filed on June 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners LORI LASKARIS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Stuart Edward Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Defendant-Respondent FIFTH THIRD BANK is represented by: Guenther Karl Fanter, Esq. Baker & Hostetler LLP Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 FLEET FEET: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Frank Senior, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. FLEET FEET, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:26-cv-04895 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.fleetfeet.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. FLEET FEET, INCORPORATED, operates the Fleet Feet online retail store, as well as the Fleet Feet interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal FLORIDA: Fordice & Equal Protection Claims Revived in Denton ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRITNEY DENTON, NYABI STEVENS, DEIDRICK DANSBY, FAYERACHEL PETERSON, ALEXANDER HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR THE STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF FLORIDA, STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE OF FLORIDA, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, RAYMOND RODRIGUES, BRIAN LAMB, et al., Defendants-Appellees, MARSHALL M CRISER, III, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-10567 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the district court's dismissal of the Students' claims. The case considers whether administrators of Florida's only historically Black college or university (HBCU), Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), violated federal law by chronically underfunding the university and offering it fewer unique, high-demand academic programs compared to its historically white peer institutions. Several current FAMU students filed a putative class action alleging that the Florida State University System's treatment of FAMU violated Title VI, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992). Current FAMU students Britney Denton, Nyabi Stevens, Deidrick Dansby, Fayerachel Peterson, Alexander Harris, and Jacari Hester (Students) alleged that the Defendants violated federal law by maintaining a segregated system of higher education at FAMU, Florida's only HBCU. The Students, who are Black, brought this putative class action on behalf of "all Black students at FAMU at any time during the 2021/2022 school year through the date of class certification." The Defendants include the Board of Governors of the State University System of Florida, along with its individual members sued in their official capacities, as well as Raymond Rodrigues, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the State University System of Florida; Manny Diaz, Jr., in his official capacity as Florida Commissioner of Education and Board member; and the State of Florida (Administrators). The Students brought three claims against the Administrators. First, a Fordice claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d et seq. (Count I). Second, a Fordice claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause (Count II). Third, a racial discrimination claim under Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment (Count III). Count I was brought against the Board and the State of Florida, while Counts II and III were brought against the individual Board members. The Students seek declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages. First, they allege that the Administrators have engaged in a policy or pattern of chronically underfunding or underresourcing FAMU compared to the state's historically white institutions, including the University of Florida (UF) and Florida State University (FSU). The Students describe this underfunding in three ways: general unequal funding in total and per-student allocations; a failure to match federal land-grant funds to FAMU at levels comparable to UF; and the use of Florida's Performance Based Funding Model (PBFM) in a way that disproportionately reduces funding to FAMU due to the state's history of segregated higher education. They allege this has led to fewer total and per-student dollars, lower faculty salaries, reduced facilities and infrastructure funding, and overall underinvestment. They further argue the underfunding is traceable to Florida’s de jure segregation system, has continuing segregative effects, and can be remedied by available state action. Second, the Students allege that the Administrators have engaged in a policy or pattern of offering fewer "unique, high-demand" programs at FAMU, while duplicating or relocating its programs at nearby historically white institutions. They point to examples such as duplicating programs at FSU, merging FAMU programs into joint programs like the Joint College of Engineering, and temporarily eliminating FAMU's law school, which has since been restored. The Students refer to these as "curricular-policy" allegations. They further argue that these curricular decisions are tied to Florida's history of de jure segregation and have continuing segregative effects, reinforcing FAMU’s identity as the "Black School" and influencing student enrollment patterns. They claim that the State's continued use of these policies shows it has not fulfilled its obligation to eliminate the effects of prior segregation in Florida's public university system. The district court rejected the Students' allegations. While it found that the Students had standing, it held they failed to state a claim under Fordice, Title VI, or the Fourteenth Amendment. The court distinguished the case from Fordice, noting that the historically white institutions identified by the Students were "traditionally diverse," not comparable to Mississippi's prior segregated system. It also concluded that FAMU's higher proportion of Black students reflected the benefits of HBCU enrollment rather than ongoing segregation. On the funding claims, the court held that Florida was not required to allocate funds equally between its two land-grant institutions, FAMU and UF, and found no sufficient link to de jure segregation. Regarding the Performance Based Funding Model, the court acknowledged possible disparate impact but found no plausible allegation of discriminatory intent. It also rejected the curricular-policy claims, reasoning that program duplication was explained by statewide growth and noting that the Students did not identify a specific program they were denied. On appeal, the Students argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because it misapplied the pleading standard. They contend that the court improperly credited the Administrators' version of the facts instead of accepting the Students' well-pleaded allegations as true, as required at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court's standing analysis, but held that the court misapplied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard by improperly crediting the Administrators' version of events and relying on disputed extrinsic materials rather than the Students' well-pleaded allegations. The court emphasized that it was not addressing the merits of the claims, but concluded that, as alleged, the Students' claims should have survived the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Students have standing because they adequately alleged injury in fact, causation, and redressability. It explained that Article III requires plaintiffs to show an injury that is fairly traceable to the D defendants' conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. It found that the Students sufficiently alleged injury based on diminished educational opportunities at FAMU, and that those injuries are fairly traceable to the Administrators' actions. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the pleadings show a substantial likelihood of redressability. Accordingly, the Students have standing to pursue their Fordice, Title VI, and Equal Protection claims. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the Students adequately pled their Fordice claims, including both the alleged underfunding and curricular-policy allegations, thereby sufficiently stating Count I (Fordice/Title VI) and Count II (Fordice/Equal Protection). Lastly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Students also adequately pled their standalone Equal Protection claim (Count III). It held that the complaint plausibly alleged discriminatory intent, particularly in light of the claimed history of underfunding FAMU relative to historically white institutions. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court improperly weighed competing factual accounts at the pleading stage, noting that questions about intent cannot be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Students have standing to bring their claims. It affirmed the district court's judgment in part, but concluded that the court erred in dismissing the Students' Fordice, Title VI, and Equal Protection claims. The Eleventh Circuit therefore reversed the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and remanded the case for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/bovWonwzV FRAME LA BRANDS: Amerson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frame La Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Amerson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frame La Brands, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-06404 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. FRAME (Frame LA Brands, LLC) -- http://www.frame-store.com/-- is a modern luxury fashion brand founded in 2008 and headquartered in West Hollywood, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com GARFIELD BEACH CVS: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Dunnia Mendez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., 1085 Garfield Beach CVS L.L.C., CVS Pharmacy Inc. Case No. 26STCV18095 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C. is a major subsidiary and operating entity for CVS Pharmacy -- https://www.cvs.com/ -- primarily holding and operating retail pharmacy and mass immunization locations across California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com GARMIN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over S2 Smart Scales' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Victor Maurer filed a class action lawsuit against Garmin International Inc., Garmin USA Inc. and Garmin Ltd. Why: Maurer claims Garmin falsely advertises that its Index S2 Smart Scales are able to accurately measure body composition metrics. Where: The Garmin class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Garmin falsely advertises that its Index S2 Smart Scales are able to accurately measure body composition metrics. Plaintiff Victor Maurer claims Garmin's smart scales, which are marketed as providing precise body composition metrics, fail to deliver accurate results, misleading consumers who rely on them for health and wellness insights. Maurer argues Garmin is aware of these inaccuracies but continues to market the scales as reliable tools for measuring body composition, including metrics like body fat percentage and muscle mass. "Garmin has been aware of these limitations for years, before and at the point of purchase, and as described [in the lawsuit], has received numerous complaints from consumers reporting inaccuracy in the Smart Scale's body composition measurements," the Garmin class action lawsuit says. Maurer wants to represent an Illinois class and multi-state class of consumers who purchased a Garmin Index S2 Smart Scale for personal use and not for resale. Smart scales allegedly priced higher than traditional scales Maurer argues Garmin's smart scales are priced significantly higher than traditional scales and marketed as advanced health devices capable of providing detailed body composition data. "Garmin is keenly aware that consumers are willing to pay a significant premium for products that purport to accurately measure their body composition," the class action lawsuit says. Consumers, meanwhile, purchase the scales believing they offer a convenient alternative to more expensive and complex methods like Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) scans, according to the Garmin class action. Maurer alleges Garmin violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, along with claims of common law fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages for himself and all class members. A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against Garmin in 2023 over claims the company failed to make its website fully accessible to and independently usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The plaintiff is represented by Harper T. Segui of Lee Segui PLLC and Rachel Soffin, Kelsey Gatlin Davies and Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson Warshaw LLP. The Garmin class action lawsuit is Maurer v. Garmin International Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-6389, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Waterman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lauren Waterman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-03721 (W.D. Tex., June 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The General Automobile Insurance -- https://www.thegeneral.com/ -- is a licensed insurance agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Arbitration & Dismissal Order to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL MOTORS LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Eric Barron, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05696, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Pennsylvania Lemon Law, and New York Lemon Law. On Dec. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. On Jan. 21, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Mar. 6, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On May 18, 2026, Judge John F. Murphy entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. 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 denied General Motors's motion to dismiss on all remaining counts. The appellate case is styled as Eric Barron, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 26-2430, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ERIC BARRON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Defendant-Appellant GENERAL MOTORS LLC is represented by: Miranda Katz, Esq. MAYER BROWN 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2262 - and - John Nadolenco, I, Esq. Daniel D. Queen, Esq. MAYER BROWN 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-5173 (213) 229-5147 GLOBAL CAPITAL: Malinovskiy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Capital Enterprises, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Malinovskiy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Global Capital Enterprises, LLC, Does 1 to 100, Case No. 26CV013918 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Global Capital Enterprises, LLC -- https://www.globalcapital.com/ -- is a US-based corporate entity heavily involved in financial services and asset management.[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 GODFATHER DELI CORP: Elwadi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Isam Elwadi, and Ala Ade Librahim Mhaidat, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Godfather Deli Corp., Ahmad F. Alzubi and Jafar Ahmad Alrawashdeh, Case No. 1:26-cv-04969 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2026), is brought to redress Defendants' prolonged pattern of delay, misrepresentation, and bad faith in the course of attempted pre litigation resolution and for seeking recovery against Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and their supporting the New York State Department of Labor ("NYDOL") regulations. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked more than forty per workweek. The Defendants did not state the correct gross wages, as defined by NYLL, for any employee on any pay statement as required by NYLL or deductions from the correct gross wages. The Plaintiffs were not required to keep track of their time, nor to their knowledge, did the Defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign-in sheets or punch cards, that accurately reflected their actual hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed at the Defendants' deli known as "Godfather Deli." Godfather Deli Corp. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2458 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com GOOD DAY: CPC of Missouri Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CPC OF MISSOURI - SMITHVILLE, LLC, and GF SAINT MARY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOD DAY FARM RETAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2616-CV14550, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, 16th Judicial Circuit, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-505 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendants -- consisting of cannabis retail dispensaries, affiliated wholesalers, and certain individual officers and investors -- formed an illegal cartel under the direction of Good Day Farm Retail Management, LLC to restrain competition in Missouri's cannabis wholesale market. Good Day Farm Retail Management, LLC is the retail and operations arm of Good Day Farm, a cannabis cultivator and multi-state dispensary brand operating across Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri.[BN] Defendant Good Day Farm Retail is represented by: Jeffrey J. Simon, Esq. Sara A. Fevurly, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 983-8000 Facsimile: (816) 983-8080 E-mail: jeff.simon@huschblackwell.com sara.fevurly@huschblackwell.com GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Roberts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Evalani Roberts, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, Inc., Does 1 to 25, Case No. 26CV014457 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Goodwill -- https://goodwillsacto.org/ -- offers job training that changes lives and reduces waste through the resale of quality goods.[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 GREENFIELD'S MARKET: Cohen Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenfield's Market of New Hyde Park, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Austin Cohen, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situate v. Greenfield's Market of New Hyde Park, LLC, Wakefern Food Corp., Food Parade, Inc., Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc., Case No. 612493/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Commercial - Contract." Greenfield's Market of New Hyde Park, LLC operates as a local ShopRite -- https://www.shoprite.com/ -- grocery store which has been the largest food retailer in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Miri Katherine Trauner, Esq. Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 GREENVILLE COUNTY: Appeals Reconsideration Order to 4th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- GREENVILLE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled O.R., et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Greenville County Library System, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02599-DCC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of civil rights. On June 27, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, which Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr. granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 19, 2026. On Apr. 16, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Mar. 19 Order, which Judge Coggins denied as moot on May 28, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Greenville County Library System v. O.R., Case No. 26-178, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents O.R., et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua A. Block, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 - and - David Allen Chaney, Jr., Esq. ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA P.O. Box 1668 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (864) 372-6681 Defendants-Petitioners GREENVILLE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM, et al. are represented by: Miles Edward Coleman, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 2 West Washington Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 373-2352 - and - James Nathan Ozmint, Esq. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., Esq. WILLSON JONES CARTER & BAXLEY, PA 325 Rocky Slope Road Greenville, SC 29607 Telephone: (864) 213-4146 (864) 672-3711 - and - John P. Riordan, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2 West Washington Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 751-7638 GSEM MANAGEMENT: Gorrin Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- LAZARO GORRIN, and other similarly situated individuals v. G.S.E.M. MANAGEMENT, INC.; PORTOFINO WINE GROUP, INC.; BRICKELL FINE WINES, INC.; RONNIE MENASHE (individually); and SHARON MENASHE (individually), Case No. 1:26-cv-24281 (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2026) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff routinely worked approximately sixty five (65) hours per week, and on certain occasions worked substantially more. Although Plaintiff's time records reflect hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendants generally reported only 40 hours on Plaintiff's paystubs. The hours Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 in a workweek were paid separately in cash at Plaintiff's regular hourly rate rather than at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the benefit of the Defendants at multiple business locations in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff was assigned to work at different locations owned, operated, and/or controlled by Defendants, including but not limited to Portofino Wine Bank, Brickell Wine Bank, and South Beach Liquor Store. Portofino Wine Group operates primarily as an importer and distributor of fresh-frozen grapes, premium juices, and fine wines from quality vineyards worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 200-23 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com GYMSHARK LTD: Class Action Targets Army of Fitness Influencers -------------------------------------------------------------- Gonzalo E. Mon, writing for Kelley Drye, reports that in January, a Florida woman was scrolling through Instagram when she saw two fitness influencers that she follows wearing Gymshark clothing. Soon after, she purchased a pair of Gymshark Flex High Waisted Leggings in black. What the woman thought of the leggings when they arrived at her home 4-7 business days later, we may never know. What we do know is that she wasn't happy when she learned that the influencers may have been paid to promote the clothing. This week, the woman filed a class action lawsuit against Gymshark alleging that the company has enlisted "an army of fitness influencers" to promote its products and instructed them to post content "without disclosing to consumers that such posts are paid advertisements." The complaint alleges that most of the soldiers in the influencer army didn't disclose their connection to the company, and those that did used small print or text that viewers couldn't see without clicking a link. As with similar lawsuits, this complaint leans on the FTC's Endorsement Guides to argue that it's misleading for an influencer to promote a product without clearly disclosing her connection to the brand. (The complaint also points to this NAD case for the same principle.) The Florida woman alleges that she wouldn't have purchased the leggings if it weren't for the misleading posts and she seeks damages for herself and other people who purchased Gymshark products after seeing similar posts. There are at least two lessons to learn here. First, if you are a consumer purchasing products based on an influencer's recommendation, you may want to err on the side of assuming that the influencer is being paid. Second, if you are a company using influencers to promote your products, make sure your influencers disclose their connection to you in a way that complies with the FTC's Endorsement Guides. If you don't, you may find yourself doing some heavy lifting in court. [GN] H. SOLIMAN MEDICAL: Casal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H. Soliman Medical Corporation. The case is styled as Emilio Casal, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H. Soliman Medical Corporation, d/b/a Advanced Psychiatry Associates, Case No. 26CV014228 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death." H. Soliman Medical Corporation doing business as Advanced Psychiatry Associates -- https://advancedpsychiatryassociates.com/ -- are full-service psychiatric facility that offers a wide range of mental health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Ingber, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 805-8373 Email: ji@jasoningber.com HEINSOHN INSURANCE: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heinsohn Insurance Agency LLC. The case is styled as Asher Bronstin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heinsohn Insurance Agency LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01483 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hinson Insurance Agency -- https://www.hinsoninsurance.com/ -- offers flexible options designed for different stages of life and financial goals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com HICKORY FARMS: Wildman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Matthew Wildman, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HICKORY FARMS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 26-2-15375-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02025. In the Complaint, styled as a class action, Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), Chapter 19.190.020 RCW, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), Chapter 19.86.020 RCW, by sending emails with misleading or false subject lines to Washington consumers for the commercial purpose of marketing Defendant's products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Blair C. Carter, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1500 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Phone (719) 475-2440 Email: bcarter@taftlaw.com HORIZON FAMILY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of reports of a possible Horizon Family Medical Group data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who believe their information may have been put at risk, including current and former Horizon Family Medical Group patients and employees. Reports Emerge of Possible Horizon Family Medical Group Data Breach A June 18, 2026 post on dark web monitoring website Ransomware.live indicates that Horizon Family Medical Group, serving New York’s Hudson Valley region, may have suffered a data breach that threatens to expose sensitive information. As depicted in the Ransomware.live post, threat actor Incransom has claimed to have stolen 7 TB of data from the Orange County-based medical provider. According to Incransom, the information reportedly stolen spans medical information such as diagnoses, prescriptions, treatments, and lab results; Structured Query Language (SQL) databases containing additional patient and corporate data; and QuickBooks databases containing detailed financial information. The Horizon Family Medical Group data breach had not been confirmed at the time this post was made. What You Can Do If you're affiliated with Horizon Family Medical Group and suspect your information could have been put at risk, 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 Horizon Family Medical Group 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] ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Arcidiacono Medicaid Class Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SALVATORE ARCIDIACONO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELIZABETH M. WHITEHORN and DULCE QUINTERO, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-3019 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Plaintiffs lacked standing, modified the dismissal to reflect that ruling, and affirmed the judgment. Long-term care facilities in Illinois must submit an electronic admission packet to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services when admitting a Medicaid beneficiary. The packet, which includes basic patient and care information, is required before the facility can receive Medicaid reimbursement. The named Plaintiffs, Salvatore Arcidiacono, William Brown, Susan Miller, and William Sarchet, are Illinois Medicaid beneficiaries whose admission packets were rejected or mishandled by the Department, preventing their long-term care facilities from receiving full Medicaid reimbursement. Although the facilities later billed the Plaintiffs for the unreimbursed care, the bills were unenforceable because Medicaid beneficiaries are not legally responsible for those costs. Although they suffered no financial loss or interruption in care, the Plaintiffs sued the state officials overseeing Illinois' Medicaid program, alleging that the Department improperly rejected admission packets for hypertechnical or unsupported reasons. They sought to represent a class of similarly situated Medicaid beneficiaries and requested injunctive relief requiring systemic reforms for alleged violations of due process and the Medicaid Act. The Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The district court held that the Plaintiffs had standing because they received bills from the healthcare facilities but dismissed the case for failure to state viable claims under the Medicaid Act or the Constitution. The Plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit held that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because, although they sought injunctive relief, they failed to allege a real and immediate threat of future injury. Finding no ongoing or imminent harm from the rejected admission packets, the Court modified the judgment to reflect a jurisdictional dismissal for lack of standing and affirmed the judgment as modified. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/l7RyMwIcv INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Chaffin Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN CHAFFIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Carolyn Chaffin, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. International Coffee & Tea, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03132-GW-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit seeks damages over Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 28, 2025. On May 7, 2026, Judge George H. Wu entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The appellate case is styled as Chaffin, et al. v. International Coffee & Tea, LLC, Case No. 26-3723, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CAROLYN CHAFFIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, PC 586 Duane Street, Suite 102 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Defendant-Appellee INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA, LLC is represented by: Monica H. Bullock, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 3390 University Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92501 IPSWITCH INC: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RE: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB (D. Mass.), the Bellwether Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend and/or modify discovery and class certification deadlines. Class Counsel certifies pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) that they have conferred with opposing counsel and have attempted in good faith to come to an agreement regarding the motion to extend and/or modify, but the parties were not able to come to an agreement in whole or in part. MOVEit is a managed file transfer software product produced by Ipswitch, Inc. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qnHsuM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler Street, NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com - and - Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen H. Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cohen Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH COHEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-06070 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information -- about its current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former patients' PII/PHI, says the suit. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the suit added. The Defendant is a healthcare technology company that specializes in "the management of cardiac arrhythmia information" and has "over 8 million patients" with "1.5 billion hours of heartbeat data analyzed."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market St., Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com JACKPOCKET INTERACTIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fa'agata Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATALIMA FA'AGATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKPOCKET INTERACTIVE GAMING LLC d/b/a JACKPOCKET CASINO, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-07476 (D.N.J., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personal identifiable information of its customers and/or employees. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its customers' and/or employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy Defendant's failures and their consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all United States residents whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach. Jackpocket Interactive Gaming LLC d/b/a Jackpocket Casino provides lottery and gaming services. The Company operates licensed lottery retail operations, advocates for responsible gaming, and enables mobile lottery ticket purchasing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com JET AVIATION: Rogers Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as GEORGE ROGERS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JET AVIATION FLIGHT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV14722, was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06397 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges 11 causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Jet Aviation Flight Services, Inc. operates and maintains airports and flying fields.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Ulises Solis, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 E-mail: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com ulises.solis@morganlewis.com KALDI'S HOLDINGS: Guzman Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------- ROXANE GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALDI'S HOLDINGS, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.KALDISCOFFEE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV18985 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., June 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly present consumers with its automatic renewal offers or continuous service offer terms prior to a consumer completing a purchase. The complaint relates that on February 4, 2026, Plaintiff purchased a bag of coffee (the "Product") from Defendant via the Website at a price of $26.00. On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff's credit card account was charged by Defendant for $26.00 for the Product as part of a recurring charge. After discovering such second charge to Plaintiff's credit card account by Defendant, Plaintiff cancelled the subscription shortly thereafter. The complaint alleges that the Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL") by (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The Plaintiff seeks available declaratory, legal, and equitable relief including injunctive relief; statutory damages; punitive damages; restitution; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff ROXANE GUZMAN is a citizen of the State of California who purchased a bag of coffee from Defendant. Defendant KALDI'S HOLDINGS, LLC is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell @pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles @pacifictrialattorneys.com KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT: Casciani Sues Over Fuel Price Fixing Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL CASCIANI; PAOLA HARTMAN; and CRYSTAL TURNBOUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a KALIBRATE; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP; 7-ELEVEN, INC.; SPEEDWAY LLC; EG AMERICA, LLC; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TRAVEL CENTERS OF AMERICA INC.; TA OPERATING LLC; TA FRANCHISE SYSTEMS LLC; WALMART INC.; SAM'S WEST, INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB; CIRCLE K STORES, INC.; TMC FRANCHISE CORPORATION; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02211-CSK (E.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) alleges violation of the California's Cartwright Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, part of the cause of California's astronomical fuel prices is an illegal algorithmic price-fixing scheme orchestrated by the algorithmic pricing company Kalibrate and some of the state's largest fuel retailers. This artificial surcharge inflicts a severe, daily financial toll on millions of Californians who rely on their vehicles for basic necessities. For everyday commuters, the inflated cost of fuel means struggling to afford the gas needed to travel to work, care for loved ones, or visit family. And for those whose livelihoods are directly tied to the road, including truck drivers transporting essential goods and ride-hailing drivers operating in urban and suburban areas, these higher prices swallow their hard-earned income, inflicting unsustainable hardship, says the suit. Knowledge Support Systems, Inc. provides software services. The Company assists in businesses in setting prices in competitive market and allocating promotional resources. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Constantine P. Economides, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 985-2959 Email: ceconomides@dynamisllp.com - and - Nicolas Stebinger, Esq. SIMONSEN SUSSMAN LLP 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 384-3130 Email: nicolas@simonsensussman.com LANDS' END: 2024 Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Lands' End has agreed to a settlement to conclude a class action lawsuit that alleged the clothing and home furnishings retailer failed to protect the sensitive information in its care from a December 2024 data breach. The Lands' End class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 13, 2026 and covers all United States residents whose private information was compromised in the data breach. Court documents state that the personal information of approximately 10,060 people was accessible in the breach. The court-approved website for the Lands' End data breach settlement can be found at LandsEndDataSettlement.com. Lands' End settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses incurred between December 6, 2024 and October 22, 2026 due to the breach. This benefit covers losses related to identity theft or fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, postage and more. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can file a claim to receive an alternative cash payment of approximately $60, with no proof required. To file a Lands' End settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Lands' End settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by October 22, 2026. Additionally, all class members are eligible to receive two years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and fraud protection. According to the settlement site, enrollment codes have been sent to class members by postcard. The court will determine whether to grant the Lands' End class action settlement final approval following a hearing on November 6, 2026. Cash payments will begin to be distributed and credit monitoring services will become active only after final approval is granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Lands' End class action lawsuit alleged that the Wisconsin-based clothing and home goods retailer failed to implement adequate cybersecurity safeguards to protect the sensitive information of its current and former employees and their dependents, which led to a data breach discovered on or around December 6, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been exposed during the breach included names, dates of birth, driver's license and passport numbers, Social Security numbers and medical information. [GN] LENOX CORP: Wildman Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MATTHEW WILDMAN on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENOX CORP., Defendant, Case No. 26-2-15358-2 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02056 to the proceeding. The complaint purports to bring claims under Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Washington's Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff asserts that Lenox has violated CEMA, and, by extension, CPA, by sending marketing emails with allegedly false or deceptive subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the putative class, injunctive relief, the greater of actual damages or trebled statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Lenox Corp. provides housewares and collectibles.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Ewart, Esq. Jessica C. Kerr, Esq. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 623-1745 E-mail: jake.ewart@hcmp.com jessica.kerr@hcmp.com - and - Kim S. Sandell, Esq. Sophie Krueger, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 2049 Century Park E., Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 998-9100 E-mail: kim.sandell@thompsonhine.com sophie.krueger@thompsonhine.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bids for Summary Judgment in Ward Suit Due July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526 (D. Mass., Filed March 1, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order that the Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than July 31, 2026. The Court having issued the Memorandum & Order on the Motion for Class Certification, pursuant to the 30 Amended Schedule issued on July 18, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Liberty is a diversified global insurer.[CC] LOVELADY DIRECTIONAL: Rayner Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL RAYNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff(s) v. LOVELADY DIRECTIONAL DRILLING , LLC , Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex., June 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Lovelady Directional Drilling , LLC provides horizontal directional drilling services, including work related to water, gas, and oil lining. Plaintiff Michael Rayner is an individual who resides in Newton County, Mississippi and who was employed by Defendant as a Directional Driller from April 2022 through April of 2026. The complaint relates that as a Directional Driller, Plaintiff was responsible for performing manual labor at the drilling site and operating the drilling equipment such as rigging up and rigging down the drilling equipment with his co-workers. His primary duties are nonexempt. Defendant paid Plaintiff on a salary and weekly basis. Moreover, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime compensation "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed, asserts the complaint. The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours and refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were or are employed. Defendant willfully violates the FLSA because it knows or shows a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices are unlawful, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action under FLSA individually and on behalf of all current and former employees of Defendant Lovelady Directional Drilling, LLC to recover unpaid wages, including overtime. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Arnel Says --------------------------------------------------------- M. Ross Arnel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORP. (N/K/A Sphere Entertainment Co.) Case No. 1:26-cv-05182 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) arises out of a data breach of MSG in which an unauthorized third party, the well known hacker, Shiny Hunter, accessed certain private customer information and biometric data that MSG collects as part of its facial recognition system. The PII that has been accessed and breached not only included attendees' sensitive information, but their biometric facial recognition data that MSG obtained through its facial recognition system, background check information, credit scores and social security numbers -- making this one of the worst data breaches in recent history. Despite having this sensitive data, MSG failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private and biometric information. This Private and biometric Information was accessed by an unauthorized third party due to Defendant’s negligent and/or careless acts and omissions, including a failure to implement reasonable data security measures, the suit says. News reports indicate that the sensitive and biometric information from approximately 26 million visitors was subject to the Data Breach. Shiny Hunter has already engaged in a "data dump" making public for anyone to see, risk assessments of whether certain attendees and celebrities were considered "low risk" or "high risk” " security risks, PII and biometric data and information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a present and continuing risk of identity theft, and unauthorized account access of accounts which operate on a facial recognition or biometric system, the suit alleges. The Defendant owns entertainment venues, including Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Hulu Theater, and the Beacon Theater.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com MARYLAND: 4th Cir. Rejects Class Certification Appeal in Palmer --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STATE OF MARYLAND; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; DIVISION OF PRETRIAL & DETENTION SERVICES (DPDS); FREDRICK T. ABELLO, Warden Petitioners, v. JAMIEN PALMER; BEATRICE ELMORE; DESHAWN WILSON, for himself and all others similarly situated; CLAYTON ROGERS, Respondents, Case No. 26-147 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the State of Maryland's petition for interlocutory review of the district court's partial class certification order. A divided Fourth Circuit denied Maryland's petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, with Judge Robert Bruce King and Judge DeAndrea Benjamin voting to deny the petition and Judge Allison Jones Rushing dissenting. Judge Rushing argued that the district court's certification order failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B) because it did not define the class, identify the class claims, issues, or defenses, or appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g). In her view, those deficiencies made the order manifestly erroneous and warranted interlocutory review under Rule 23(f). A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://lnk.ua/aJP3PFbhC MDL 3166: Roblox Child Sexual Exploitation Suit Denied Transfer --------------------------------------------------------------- In case "In re: Roblox Corporation Child Sexual Exploitation and Assault Litigation," Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denies the transfer of case captioned "Seitz v. Roblox Corporation, Et Al.," C.A. No. 2:25−00166 (E.D. Ky.) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 3047. Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, and ByteDance Inc. initiated said move. Discord Inc. opposes transfer of the claims while Roblox Corporation does not oppose transfer of all claims. Plaintiff agrees that the claims against the TikTok defendants should be transferred and opposes transfer of the claims against Roblox and Discord. The actions allege that minor children were sexually exploited and, in some cases, assaulted by child predators who targeted and groomed them through the highly popular Roblox gaming platform. Plaintiffs contend that, having established a connection with the minor plaintiffs on Roblox, the predators then persuaded the minors to continue their interactions, and often to exchange sexually explicit images, on a second platform such as Discord, Snapchat, or Instagram, or via texting or video-calling on a cellular phone. Plaintiffs assert substantially identical claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, and design defect. After considering the argument of counsel, the panel concluded that transfer will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Seitz alleges that, while using the Roblox platform, her daughter was exposed to material encouraging violence and homophobia, and that she ultimately was pressured into committing suicide. She alleges that this is also the case with Discord and TikTok. There may be some degree of overlap in the discovery with Seitz and the MDL, as both will focus on Roblox and Discord’s allegedly inadequate parental controls, safety features, and warnings regarding potential risks to children, however, including cases that do not involve sexual exploitation, predation, or assault could result in an overly broad MDL involving any plaintiff injured by exposure to objectionable content on Roblox. Such an MDL would be unduly complicated and difficult to manage. A full-text copy of the court's June 3, 2026 order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhvv44w MERRICK BANK: 3rd Circuit Affirms Arbitration in Glover FCRA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEBORAH GLOVER, Appellant, v. MERRICK BANK, Case No. 25-2120 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting Merrick's motion to compel arbitration. Glover applied for and received a credit card from Merrick in February 2014. By using the card, she accepted the Cardholder Agreement, which included an arbitration provision and a bold, all-caps waiver of class actions. After accumulating an unpaid balance of $1,350.87, Glover's credit card account was charged off by Merrick in January 2016. Merrick later assigned the debt to N.A.R., Inc. for collection. More than eight years later, Glover filed a putative class action against Merrick in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). She claimed that Merrick unlawfully accessed her credit report in June 2022 without her consent or a permissible purpose because their credit relationship had already ended. Merrick removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). The district court granted Merrick's motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitrability was apparent from the face of the complaint, denying Glover's request for limited discovery on that issue, and concluding that her FCRA claims fell within the Cardholder Agreement's arbitration provision. The court dismissed Glover's class claims and compelled arbitration of her individual claims. Glover appealed. On appeal, Glover argued that the district court should have applied the Rule 56 standard and allowed limited discovery on arbitrability. The Third Circuit agreed that Rule 56 governed because arbitrability was not apparent from the face of the complaint, but held that discovery was unnecessary since Glover did not dispute the existence of the Cardholder Agreement's arbitration provision. Applying Utah law under the agreement's choice-of-law clause, the Third Circuit further held that Glover's FCRA claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration provision because they arose from the parties' credit card relationship. The Third Circuit therefore affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration and dismissing the class claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/tsmeQKwE4 MINNESOTA: Sued Over Improper Services Plans for Vulnerable Adults ------------------------------------------------------------------ MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENTIAL SERVICE HOMES, and EVAN O'CONNOR, as guardian and next friend of SHAWN ENGMAN; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHIREEN GANDHI, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03037 (D. Minn., June 22, 2026) alleges violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, in the early 2000s, the State of Minnesota was increasingly targeted by allegations that it was systematically violating the human rights of vulnerable adults by placing them in overly institutionalized settings. In response, the legislature in 2009 enacted a statutory preference known for placement of vulnerable adults in family-like environments known as the "group-home moratorium." This public-policy preference for family-like environments was buttressed in 2014 when the State of Minnesota entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a federal lawsuit known as the "Jensen settlement." The Jensen settlement required the State of Minnesota to adopt policies that required vulnerable adults to be placed in the least-restrictive settings that would serve their individual needs. The State of Minnesota also committed to developing "person-centered" services plans for vulnerable adults that would give each vulnerable adult a substantial voice in selecting their placement. Starting as soon as court monitoring was lifted in 2021, the Defendant has pursued a deliberate campaign to sabotage family residential services providers, to escape the restrictions of the Jensen settlement and to force vulnerable adults into more institutionalized settings preferred by the Defendant, says the suit. The Minnesota Department of Human Services manages vital social services—including Medical Assistance (Medicaid), MinnesotaCare, SNAP, child support, and economic assistance—for low-income and vulnerable residents across the state. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Steck, Esq. 6160 Summit Drive North, Suite 220 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Telephone: (763) 402-1829 Email: jason@jasonstecklaw.com MISSOURI: Darrington Bid to Certify Classes Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA DARRINGTON, as next friend for M.R., et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04268-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Harpool entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1. The Court certifies the following classes: "All people who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Missouri state court and are: (a) declared not competent to proceed to trial by the state court; (b) currently detained in a county or city jail or similar facility; (c) court-ordered to receive restoration services by DMH; and (d) awaiting court-ordered competency restoration services to be provided by DMH or its designees for more than 90 days beyond the Restoration order of the circuit court (the "Restoration Class")"; and "All people who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Missouri state court and for whom a court has ordered a competency evaluation and who are: (a) currently detained in a county or city jail or similar facility, and (b) placed on a waitlist for competency evaluation services by DMH and (c) awaiting restoration services for more than 90 days beyond an order of the circuit court (the "Evaluation Class")." 2. The Court appoints Plaintiffs M.R., K.M., M.T., O.J., and C.T. as class representatives for the "Restoration Class." 3. The Court appoints Plaintiff D.W. as class representative for the "Evaluation Class." 4. The Court appoints undersigned counsel as class counsel. 5. Within 10 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint proposed amended scheduling order and proposed dates for a preliminary injunction to take place within the next 60 days. Both proposed classes are entitled to the same level of due process in competency proceedings—with respect to both the evaluation and the treatment aspects. Litigating class members' claims individually would present a risk of varying outcomes in what due process requires, when the same standards should apply to all competency proceedings for all indigent criminal defendants with serious mental illness. The Department provides services and support for individuals with mental illness, developmental disabilities, and substance use disorder. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c2S3Ke at no extra charge.[CC] MUNCHKIN INC: Quintana Files Suit Over Mislabeled Lactation Cookies ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA ALBERTINA QUINTANA, ELVIRA LISET LOPEZ, GWYENETH ETHER, and KATIE LYNN FASSBINDER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MUNCHKIN, INC. and WHY BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05822 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy the misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, labeling, and sale of their premium priced Munchkin Lactation Cookie Bites (the "Lactation Cookies" or "Products") throughout the states of California, New York, Illinois, and the United States. The complaint relates that the Defendants exploit one of parenthood's most vulnerable moments -- a mother's concern about providing adequate nutrition for her infant. Through representations on product packaging, the Munchkin website, and on online retail platforms, Defendants deceptively represent that the Products are unique lactation cookies that will increase breast milk supply and production beyond what an ordinary cookie would do. The reality is starkly different. A 2023 peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition specifically tested Defendants' Lactation Cookies against regular Famous Amos cookies in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 176 nursing mothers. The results were unequivocal: Defendants' premium-priced Lactation Cookies did not increase milk production more than ordinary cookies. In fact, mothers consuming the Famous Amos cookies experienced on average greater increases in milk production than those consuming Defendants' Lactation Cookies. Despite this clear scientific evidence, as well as widespread consumer complaints regarding the efficacy of the Products, Defendants continue to market the Products with representations that reasonable consumers understand to mean the Products will increase breast milk supply more than ordinary cookies – promises the Products do not fulfill. Defendants charge consumers a premium price based on their deceptive promises. Like other consumers, when Plaintiffs bought the Lactation Cookies, they read and relied on misleading lactation representations and reasonably believed the Lactation Cookies would increase their milk production and supply more than ordinary cookies would. They would not have purchased the Products or paid the premium price they did for the Products if they knew the Products were no more effective than traditional cookies. As such, Plaintiffs have been financially injured as a direct result of Defendants' false and misleading marketing practices, says the suit. Plaintiff Bianca Albertina Quintana purchased the Lactation Cookies in the Oatmeal Chocolate Chip flavor in or around April 2025 from a Target retailer in California. Defendant Munchkin, Inc. is a Delaware corporation engaged in manufacturing, advertising, labeling, sale, and distribution of the Lactation Cookies nationwide, including in California. Defendant Why Brands, Inc., as the parent company of Defendant Munchkin, Inc., conducts substantial business throughout the United States and in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com - and - Robert Abiri, Esq. ABIRI LAW, PC 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: 949-459-2133 Facsimile: 949-534-4367 E-mail: rabiri@abirilaw.com MV TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MV Transportation, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Derek Jackson and Amanda Garcia, and all others similarly situated v. MV Transportation, Inc., MV Public Transportation Inc., Westcats, Does 1 Through 50 Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV18577 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." MV Transportation, Inc. -- https://mvtransit.com/ -- is the largest privately owned passenger transportation contracting services firm in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law NANO-X IMAGING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX). Shareholders who purchased shares of NNOX during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form-3/?id=188984&from=3 CLASS PERIOD: March 31, 2025 to April 17, 2026 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants overstated purported efficiency gains achieved in NanoX's operations, as well as the purported increased demand for its products; (ii) in reality, Nano-X's production and manufacturing operations were poorly aligned with demand for the Company's products; (iii) as a result, Nano-X was experiencing significantly increased operating expenses and cash burn; (iv) the foregoing significantly increased the likelihood that Nano-X would be forced to take disruptive remedial measures with respect to its manufacturing operations, entailing significant restructuring and impairment charges; and (v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: August 11, 2026 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information at: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form-3/?id=188984&from=3 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of NNOX during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is August 11, 2026. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Phone: (646) 453-8903 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com [GN] NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: July 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Van Kwawegen LLP on June 15 announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action that would benefit sellers of National Instruments Corporation common stock: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re National Instruments Corporation Securities Litigation No. 1:23-cv-10488-DLC SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION To: All persons who sold common stock of National Instruments Corporation ("National Instruments") between August 12, 2022 and August 30, 2022, inclusive, and/or between September 12, 2022 and September 28, 2022, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class," and each member of the Class, a "Class Member"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the lawsuit that is now pending in that Court under the caption In re National Instruments Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10488-DLC (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, which excludes certain persons under the definition in the full Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice"). IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. The full Notice is currently being sent by email to known Class Members and is available at www.nationalinstrumentssecuritiesclassaction.com. You may also obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Notice Administrator at: National Instruments Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004 info@strategicclaims.net www.nationalinstrumentssecuritiesclassaction.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP Jonathan Zweig 485 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 836-9630 jonathan@jvk-law.com If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a Class Member. If you choose to remain a Class Member, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in National Instruments common stock. You will automatically be included in the Class. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any order or judgment of the Court, and you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money that might be recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than July 30, 2026, to the Notice Administrator, in accordance with the instructions included in the full Notice. Please note that if you decide to exclude yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose. Under Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has discretion whether to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class if there is a settlement or judgment in the Action. You may obtain further information by directing your inquiry in writing or by telephone to the Notice Administrator at the address above. Requests for exclusion from the Class must be sent to the Notice Administrator by mail and cannot be made by telephone or email. BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York NETWORKS INC: Parties Must Submit Class Cert Courtesy Copies ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v. Extreme Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05102 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order directing the parties to submit paper courtesy copies of Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act. Extreme Networks provides wired and wireless network infrastructure equipment, software, and services.[CC] NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE: Starzynski Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SOPHIA STARZYNSKI, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant, Case No. ESX-L-003697-26, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06963 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed her complaint in Essex County alleging, inter alia, that Defendant violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, depriving Plaintiff and her putative class members of federal and state minimum wages and overtime compensation. The New Jersey Institute of Technology is a public research university in Newark, New Jersey, United States, with a graduate-degree-granting satellite campus in Jersey City.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael P. Collins, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 10 Bank Street, Suite 1120 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 306-7870 E-mail: mcollins@bsk.com NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Remaining Claims in Sacerdote ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. Alan Sacerdote, et al., v. New York University, Retirement Plan Committee, Margaret Meagher, and Nancy Sanchez, Case No. 1:16-cv-06284-AT-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Torres entered an order granting stipulation for class certification for remaining claims against the NYU Defendants as follows: 1. A class shall be certified to include the remaining claims and defined as previously stated in this Court's prior order granting class certification: "All participants and beneficiaries of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York University Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and Administration from Aug. 9, 2010, through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants and any participant who is a fiduciary to the Plans (the "Class")." 2. The class period is Aug. 9, 2010, through the date of judgment. 3. Accordingly, the attorneys of Schlichter Bogard LLC who have entered their appearances in this action shall be appointed Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 4. By not opposing the Plaintiffs' motion, the NYU Defendants have not waived any rights to seek decertification of the class or to modify the class definition. The NYU Defendants have also not waived any subject matter jurisdiction or standing arguments. Certification of the Class's claims for relief is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1), because the prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of: (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual Class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of non-party Class members or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. New York University is a private research university. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sfUI9i at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Parties Must Submit Status Letter by August 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bowser v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-06183 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2023), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered a Scheduling Order as follows: On or before Aug. 21, 2026, the parties must submit a joint status letter outlining their plan for discovery. The letter must address any issues discussed at the June 10, 2026 conference that remain outstanding with respect to the materials to be produced. Fact discovery must be completed on or before Dec. 4, 2026. Any party intending to file a pre-motion conference letter seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment or a motion for class certification must do so on or before Jan. 15, 2027, in accordance with the assigned judge's individual rules. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] NEW YORK: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 28 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZETTE DE SOUZA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01222-RA-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered an order: The parties' application to extend their discovery-related deadlines is granted. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is extended until Sept. 28, 2026; the deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion is Oct. 28, 2026, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply, if any, is extended until Nov. 11, 2026. The deadline for the parties to complete depositions is extended until Oct. 30, 2026. The deadline to complete all fact discovery is extended until Nov. 30, 2026. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Gp8Xj at no extra charge.[CC] NIKE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Caldwell & Dunn Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANN CALDWELL, PHILLIP TAYLOR, RACHEL BAILEY, ROMAN MERINO, TYRANIKA JOHNSON, GREGORY HOFFERT, and ELZEY LINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00923-IM (D. Or.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: (1) consolidate the Caldwell and Dunn cases, and any later-filed related cases for all further proceedings; (2) grant the Plaintiffs 30 days to file a consolidated complaint; (3) appoint Jason T. Dennett of Milberg, M. Anderson Berry of Emery Reddy Berry, and Patrick Wallace of Lee Segui as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in the consolidated action; and (4) grant Nike 60 days to file a responsive pleading to the consolidated complaint. Both cases make nearly identical factual allegations against the Defendant regarding the tariff charges and fees it assessed individuals pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). Both cases bring overlapping claims, rely on the similar legal theories, against the same Defendant, and bring claims on behalf of virtually identical Classes. Because the disposition of each claim will turn on the adjudication of the same issues and the same conduct, consolidation under Rule 42 regarding the Nike cases is warranted. The Plaintiffs have consulted with Defendant regarding consolidation, and Defendant agrees that consolidation under Rule 42(a) is appropriate. Nike is an American athletic footwear and apparel corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MRl5EW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 E-maiL: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Ave, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com gklinger@milberg.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Timothy Emery, Esq. Brook Garberding, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com emeryt@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Nicole A. Maruzzi, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com - and - Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 421 N. Harrington Street, Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7775 E-mail: pwallace@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com mlee@leesegui.com - and - Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Toby J. Marshall, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com NISSAN NORTH: Superina Balks at Unsafe, Defective Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------- CARL SUPERINA, DONNA HELTON, RONALD McWILLIAMS, TRACEY WIGG, and DANIEL SHERBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00789 (M.D. Tenn., June 10, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of United States residents consisting of current and former owners and lessees of model year 2017–2022 Nissan Rogue Sport vehicles that have allegedly dangerous and defective radiator coolant fans. According to the complaint, the defect is due to defective materials used in the Radiator Fans. When a car engine overheats, the potential ramifications are serious. If the engine stays overheated for too long, parts such as the cylinder head and gasket can be damaged, resulting in failure of the engine. Overheating can also lead to stalling, leaving Vehicles in dangerous locations, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek remedies for Defendant's breach of implied warranties, fraud/fraudulent omissions, unjust enrichment, and violations of New York General Business Law, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Nissan North America, Inc. operates in the automotive industry. The Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles and distributes them through dealers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq. Kasi Wautlet, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP McKNIGHT, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7000 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com kmcgregor@sanfordheisler.com kwautlet@sanfordheisler.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL: McFaddedn Suit Removed to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SHAWN MCFADDEDN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL ERECTORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 31-CV-26-1028, was removed from the District Court, County of Itasca, State of Minnesota, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 11, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02925-ECT-LIB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Northern Industrial Erectors, Inc. is a construction company headquartered in Itasca County, Minnesota.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul L. Ratelle, Esq. FABYANSKE, WESTRA, HART & THOMSON, P.A. 80 South 8th Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 359-7600 Facsimile: (612) 359-7602 E-mail: pratelle@fwhtlaw.com NOVA SCOTIA: 25 Facility Residents Sue Over Solitary Confinement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shaina Luck, writing for CBC News, reports that Gabriel Leblanc says he's feeling a lot less alone these days. Leblanc, 21, is a co-lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit against the Nova Scotia government over allegations that youths were subjected to a form of solitary confinement at a provincially run facility. The class-action lawsuit is an expansion of a lawsuit filed by Leblanc and two other former facility residents last October. After their concerns were covered by CBC News and other outlets, more than 25 others have come forward to say they experienced similar treatment. "That's pretty powerful," said Emma Halpern, the legal director for Path Legal, the non-profit law firm backing Leblanc's group. Halpern said the firm has never seen such "a big wave of individuals calling us saying, 'This happened to me too.'" "That harm is still real for them, that they are still living with the consequences of what they went through," she said. The lawsuit was submitted to Supreme Court in Halifax this week. It involves Wood Street Centre, a facility for youth between the ages of 12 and 18 who are in government care and have been deemed to have an emotional or behavioural disorder. The centre in Truro, N.S., is divided into two sides comprising an 18-bed "residential" section and 20-bed "treatment" facility. The lawsuit alleges rooms known as "therapeutic quiet rooms," or TQRs, were used as a form of discipline at Wood Street Centre. "I think that they are gross, inhumane punishment that needs to be abolished and they really have no room in our facilities in this province," Gabriel Leblanc said in a phone interview Thursday, June 18. Leblanc told CBC News that he estimated he was placed in a TQR more than 50 times. He described it as a white, unfurnished concrete room with a metal door and an observation window. Leblanc said he wasn't permitted to leave the TQR for any reason, and that while inside he began to have thoughts of death and self-harm. He said he usually spent about an hour in the TQR but his longest stay was four hours. He wasn’t able to measure time but says staff told him afterward how long he’d been inside. Leblanc said if he needed the bathroom, he was forced to wait. The lawsuit alleges that youth were placed in a TQR because they didn't follow an order or talked back to staff. "Many of which would be considered perfectly typical teenage behaviours," said Halpern. "That is something very serious and something that we need to understand, and that has caused a lot of harm." The lawsuit's allegations have not been tested in court, and a defence by the province must still be filed. Path Legal says it has given a required two months of notice to the provincial government. The original lawsuit filed by three people in October has been discontinued and no defence was filed in that case. It has since been re-started as the class-action lawsuit. A spokesperson for the provincial Department of Opportunities and Social Development declined to comment on a matter before the courts, but said it prioritizes the safety and well-being of youth in care. "Staff providing Child and Family Wellbeing services are grounded in professional standards, practice values and strong dedication to children, youth and families in Nova Scotia," the statement continued. A court must approve or "certify" the proposed class-action in order for it to go ahead. Typically class-action suits take more than a year to resolve but Leblanc says he wants to move forward with it. "It brings more people in, because this is a very broad issue that isn't selective to three people," he said. Path Legal says its proposed class-action lawsuit would cover any young person who spent any length of time in a TQR at the Wood Street Centre between 2011 and the present. [GN] NY RIVERSIDE: Vasquez Action Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vasquez, et al., v. NY Riverside Gourmet Deli Inc. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-05015-DEH-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order teferring Vasquez action to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement Specific Non-dispositive motion/dispute: class certification The Defendant offers fresh sandwiches, smoothies, coffee, wings, bagels, salads and more. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R9yPgU at no extra charge.[CC] OAK VIEW: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Eisenberg Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHLOE EISENBERG and JUSTIN BOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OAK VIEW GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02742 (D. Colo., June 18, 2026) alleges that OVG failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, and other personally identifiable information (PII) from hackers. In June 2026, OVG filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Texas Attorney General. OVG experienced a second data breach that occurred between December 16, 2025, and January 16, 2026, when an unauthorized third party gained access to OVG's computer systems and exfiltrated certain files that contained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' highly sensitive and confidential PII (the Data Breach). Most, if not all "Class Members" have no idea that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they are, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. Armed with the Private Information accessed in the Data Breach, data thieves can commit a variety of crimes including, e.g., opening new financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in Class Members' names, using Class Members' names to obtain medical services, using Class Members' information to obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class Members' information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class Members' names but with another person's photograph, and giving false information to police during an arrest, the suit says. OVG, based in Denver, Colorado, is a hospitality and entertainment management company that employs thousands of individuals in multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, No. 16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com thilton@sirillp.com OBSIDIAN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Lewis of Games Radar reports that Fallout: New Vegas, The Outer Worlds 2, and Avowed developer Obsidian Entertainment is facing a class action lawsuit amid allegations that the studio has "engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ('IWC') Wage Orders." As highlighted by Reddit user macken-zee on the PCGaming subreddit, this case isn't actually a totally new one -- it appears to have flown under the radar for the last few months. In fact, it first kicked off in October last year, but an amended class action complaint filed on January 12, 2026, by a plaintiff (who is listed in The Outer Worlds 2's credits as a QA lead), outlines the allegations in full. It's alleged that Obsidian "increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws" by failing to "pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages)," including those "due upon separation of employment," and pay wages in a "timely" manner during employment to the plaintiff and class members. Other allegations include the failure to "provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof," or "lawful rest breaks," and failure to "reimburse necessary business-related costs" and "provide accurate itemized wage statements" to those claimed to be affected. To be clear, the class is defined as "all persons currently or formerly employed by any or all Defendants as nonexempt employees in the State of California at any time between October 9, 2021 and the date of class certification," with Turner also aiming to certify "all members of the Class who separated their employment with any or all Defendants at any time between October 9, 2022 and the date of class certification." The lawsuit seeks "monetary relief" for those allegedly affected "to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses," as well as "penalties pursuant" to the alleged Labor Code violations and Code of California Civil Procedure. Obsidian filed a response to this in early March, in which it "denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation" laid out, and requested that the complaint be "dismissed in its entirety with prejudice." It put forth 38 points of "defense or affirmative defense," including claims that the complaint "fails to state facts sufficient to constitute valid claims against Defendant upon which relief can be granted," and that the plaintiff and any alleged class members or aggrieved employees "consented to and/or acquiesced in the alleged conduct by Defendant of which Plaintiff now complains." Since then, the case has been pretty quiet -- per the Superior Court of California, County of Orange's register of actions, the last update apparently came the day after that aforementioned response was filed, and was a payment of $1,435, seemingly consisting of a complex case fee and a fee for an "answer or other 1st paper." We've reached out to Xbox for comment, and will update this article if we receive a response. [GN] OFFICE DEPOT: Parties in Yount Suit Must Submit Supplemental Brief ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yount v. Office Depot LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00392 (W.D. Wash., Filed March 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order directing the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing: (1) whether plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue her EPOA claim in federal court; (2) what effect, if any, Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, 5 Wn.3d 289 (2025), and subsequent decisions from this district have on the Article III standing analysis; (3) which party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction in light of removal and plaintiff's withdrawn remand motion; and (4) the appropriate disposition if Article III standing is lacking. The parties shall each file a supplemental brief of no more than 12 pages by Tuesday, July 7, 2026. The parties may file simultaneous response briefs of no more than 10 pages by Tuesday, July 14, 2026. No reply briefs shall be filed unless requested by the Court. The parties shall confine their briefing to Article III standing and shall not reargue the merits of the outstanding motions. The Clerk is directed to renote defendants' Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendants' motion to deny class certification, and plaintiff's motion for class certification to Tuesday, July 14, 2026. Authorized by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Before resolving those motions, the Court finds that supplemental briefing is warranted regarding whether plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue her claim in federal court. Although plaintiff previously moved to remand and later withdrew that motion, subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and the Court must assure itself of jurisdiction before resolving the pending motions. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Office Depot is an American office supply retailer.[CC] OIYS MEDIA: Rodriguez Privacy Suit Removed to C. D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OIYS Media, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV14928, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03239 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff generally alleges claims against Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California intrusion upon seclusion claims. OIYS Media, LLC, d/b/a www.onlyinyourstate.com operates as a local travel company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Troutman, Esq. Puja Amin, Esq. Brittany Andres, Esq. TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 350-3663 Facsimile: (949) 203-8689 E-mail: troutman@troutmanamin.com amin@troutmanamin.com brittany@troutmanamin.com OTTER TAIL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit over PVC Pipe Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Otter Tail Corp disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2026, that it is facing "In re: PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation" (Case No. 1:24-cv-07639) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Putative federal class action lawsuits have been filed in 2024 alleging violations of the antitrust laws against Otter Tail Corporation and two subsidiaries, along with more than twenty other PVC pipe manufacturers. The actions were later consolidated as mentioned. The claims were directed at numerous participants across the industry, including more than two dozen other manufacturers of PVC pipe and conduit, and are premised on alleged coordinated conduct within the industry. Otter Tail Corp is a diversified energy company based in the Upper Midwest, with operations in electric utility services, manufacturing and plastics. The company serves residential, commercial and industrial customers across several states through its regulated utility and related businesses. PACIFIC FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger with Banner --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Pacific Financial Corporation (OTCQX: PFLC) related to its merger with Banner Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Pacific Financial shareholders are expected to receive 0.2633 share of Banner common stock for each share of Pacific Financial. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for August 12, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pacific-financial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Nuvalent, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUVL) related to its sale to GSK plc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Nuvalent shareholders are expected to receive $124.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nuvalent-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCRN) related to its sale to KL Criss Cross Intermediate, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction Cross Country shareholders are expected to receive $13.25 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 16, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cross-country-healthcare-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Bio Green Med Solution, Inc. (NASDAQ: BGMS) related to its merger with Future NRG Sdn. Bhd. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/bio-green-med-solution-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. 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 company, director or officer 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] PENN MEDICINE: Whetstone Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------- Sakaiyah Whetstone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, d/b/a PENN MEDICINE, Case No. 2:26-cv-04060 (E.D. Pa., June 12, 2026), is brought seeking unpaid compensations arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and common law. The Defendant used a number of job titles, including, but not limited to, Access Associate and Patient Services Associate to refer to these employees (collectively referred to herein as "Patient Access Representatives" or "PARs"). The Defendant heavily relied on PARs to, among other things, schedule patient appointments, send messages to medical staff, refill prescriptions, and connect patients with medical offices. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its PARs for work tasks completed before their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in PARs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate PARs for the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked remotely for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt PAR with the specific job title of Access Associate from February 2025 through July 2025. The Defendant is a regional healthcare system that holds itself out as "one of the world's leading academic medical centers" which "melds innovation with compassionate care by offering patients access to the latest medical breakthroughs."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com - and - Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com READING INTERNATIONAL: Berryman Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, before the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer, for an Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (i) granting her motion to certify the Class; (ii) appointing the Plaintiff as representative of the Class; (iii) appointing Philip L. Fraietta, Alec M. Leslie, and Stefan Bogdanovich of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel, and (iv) granting such other, further, or different relief as the Court deems just and proper. Reading is an entertainment and real estate company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4EbRYt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com REGIONS BANK: Tate and Davis Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- SHAMAROLD TATE and SHANTEL DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00954-EGL (N.D. Ala., June 3, 2026) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of individuals who are current and former Regions' front-line, customer facing branch employees with the titles Relationship BEs and Team Lead, employed by Defendant. Allegedly, the Defendant required Plaintiffs and members of the Class to engage in "off the clock" procedures and protocols in the opening of the branch bank locations at the start of the workday. In addition, the Plaintiffs and members of the Class were also required to perform unpaid procedures in closing the bank. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs or other BEs for all hours worked, including for time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and did not pay proper overtime premiums. Headquartered in Birmingham, AL, Regions Bank is a banking subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Hughes, Esq. HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP 1490 Northbank Parkway, Suite 234 Tuscaloosa, AL 35406 Telephone: (205) 523-0463 E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Lane L. Vines, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net lvines@bm.net REVLON CONSUMER: Mitchum Contains Fragrance, Flick Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE FLICK and LLOYD SONGER, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03602-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) is class action suit brought by the Plaintiffs against Revlon on behalf of themselves, similarly situated Class Members, and the general public to enjoin Revlon from deceptively marketing deodorant Products, and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. 1 According to the complaint, Revlon sells Mitchum "Unscented" deodorant in gel and roll-on varieties (the Products). Unsurprisingly, consumers believe the Products are unscented, i.e. free of fragrance. Revlon's marketing, however, is false and misleading because the Products actually contain fragrance and are therefore scented. By falsely labeling the Products "Unscented" when they are formulated with added fragrance, Revlon chose to increase its profits at the expense of consumer trust. Because the Products are prominently labeled as "Unscented," reasonable consumers frequently do not -- particularly prior to purchase -- turn the Products over to read the fine-print ingredient list that includes "parfum (fragrance)" in the midst of unrecognizable ingredients like "aluminum sesquichlorohydrate" "cyclopentasiloxane," and "tetramethyl acetyloctahydronaphthalenes," among others, says the suit. The Defendant distributes cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Kaden Byron, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com kbyron@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over Misleading Statements of Trucks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anna Washenko, writing for engadget, reports that Rivian has been sued on allegations that it made misleading statements about the self-driving capabilities of its R1T truck and R1S SUV. According to the class action complaint brought by Rivian customers, the first-generation models of these vehicles are not capable of the offering the self-driving potential that the company had promised. The plaintiffs argued that Rivian represented that those early models would be capable of level 3 autonomous driving, meaning the vehicle would be able to steer, accelerate and break without driver action. "In reality, Rivian manufactured its Gen 1 Vehicles without the hardware, cameras, sensors, and compute to enable hands-free driving and/or Level 3 autonomous operation," the complaint states. "No software update -- no matter how sophisticated -- will enable its Gen 1 Vehicles to perform as advertised. Rivian unquestionably knew that its Gen 1 Vehicles would never be capable of Level 3 autonomy or 'true hands-free driving' yet continued to tout the supposed capabilities of its vehicles to induce consumers to purchase them." Rivian introduced its "universal hands-free driving" software update late last year. The tech was made available for the company's R2 collection of electric vehicles and the second generation of its R1 lineup. When contacted by TechCrunch, Rivian declined to offer comment on the pending case. [GN] RL INVESTOR: Levine Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ANDREW LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RL INVESTOR HOLDINGS LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV428691, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Lake County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05653 to the proceeding. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant uses technologies on its website that track users' activity on the website in violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Constitution. RL Investor Holdings LLC is a private investment group.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gabrielle Sullera, Esq. Jura Zibas, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-0990 Facsimile: (415) 434-1370 E-mail: Gabrielle.Sullera@wilsonelser.com Jura.Zibas@wilsonelser.com ROEHL TRANSPORT: Harris Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELLE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROEHL TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00227-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), defined as: "All individuals who have been hired into Roehl's On-the-Job CDL Training Program Truck Driving Job and have been terminated by Roehl after obtaining their CDL and before completing 120,000 miles, since March 26, 2022." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint Rachelle Harris as the class representative, and appoint Fair Work, P.C. as class counsel. Roehl is a Wisconsin-based trucking company providing asset-based freight and logistics services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vWedGy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Rachel Smit, Esq. Brook S. Lane, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com rachel@fairworklaw.com brook@fairworklaw.com ROSS DRESS: Sears Labor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as EMILY SEARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 26-00002-15549-6-SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02042 to the proceeding. The complaint sets forth four causes of action under the Washington Administrative Code and the Revised Code of Washington against Ross alleging: (1) failure to compensate for legally noncompliant meal periods; (2) failure to compensate for legally noncompliant rest periods; (3) wage theft; and (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements. Ross Stores, Inc., operating under the brand name Ross Dress for Less, is an American chain of discount department stores headquartered in Dublin, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason Harrington, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: jharrington@littler.com ROSS DRESS: Sears Suit Removed from Wash. Super. to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as EMILY SEARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-15558-1 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02038 to the proceeding. The complaint is styled as a class action and asserts allegations on behalf of a putative class under Washington Civil Rule 23. The complaint sets forth one cause of action against Ross alleging a violation of Revised Code of Washington. The Complaint also requests costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the state law. Ross Stores, Inc., operating under the brand name Ross Dress for Less, is an American chain of discount department stores headquartered in Dublin, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason Harrington, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: jharrington@littler.com RXO LAST: Mejia Must Submit Additional Briefing on Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA, v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order directing that the plaintiff provide additional briefing on the plaintiff's proposed subclasses and how each subclass meets the Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements. Specifically, the Court requests additional briefing on plaintiff's cursory statements in reply and at the hearing that it plans to pursue a joint employment theory of liability against RXO. Further, the plaintiff should clarify the dates of his proposed class periods, in light of the various cases settled in plaintiff's counsels' prior "identical last-mile independent contractor misclassification class action matter against RXO's predecessor," in Garcia, Case No. 16-cv-4440-WHO. The Plaintiff shall provide this additional briefing to the Court by no later than June 26, 2026. The Defendant may, but is not required to, respond by July 3, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification refers to a putative class of Common Carriers, Drivers, and Helpers who performed delivery services for defendant RXO collectively as "Drivers." The Defendant provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q9lqoy at no extra charge.[CC] S3 HOLDING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S3 Holding LLC d/b/a Torgeis, Case No. E 0:26-cv-03008-JMB-JFD (D. Minn., June 18, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's Website, www.torgeis.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SAGE COUNSELING: Prasad Files Suit Over Probation Extortion Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAYANK PRASAD, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAGE COUNSELING, INC., an Arizona corporation; JUSTIN SCHANS, in his individual capacity; STEPHANIE HOBSON, in her individual capacity, and CORINE WAGONER, in her individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04198-SPL (D. Ariz., June 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for systemic, ongoing violations of the United States Constitution, federal civil rights laws, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This action is brought to dismantle a systemic, highly organized, and unconstitutional "pay-to-play" probation extortion scheme operated by Defendant Sage, acting in concert under color of law with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department (MCAPD). The complaint relates that the Fourteenth Amendment strictly prohibits the state from revoking a citizen's probation and imprisoning them solely because they lack the financial resources to pay court-ordered fees, fines, or assessment tolls, without a judicial inquiry into their ability to pay and an evaluation of alternative, non-punitive measures. Despite this clear constitutional boundary, Defendant Sage, acting under delegated municipal authority, has erected an absolute cash payroll around the physical liberty of probationers in Maricopa County. Defendants systematically force self-pay, non-Medicaid (non-AHCCCS) probationers to pay a mandatory, out-of-pocket fee of $110.00 cash to undergo court-mandated substance abuse and compliance assessments. In short, Defendants utilize the state-sponsored, armed physical incarceration to extort cash from indigent or non-subsidized citizens for private corporate profit. The Plaintiff successfully captured this systemic extortion scheme on a conformed, self-authenticating audio recording on June 2, 2026, asserts the complaint. The verbatim admissions of Sage's corporate agents -- specifically Defendant Corine Wagoner -- prove that this is a standard, systemic, and class-wide operational practice, it adds. Furthermore, when the Plaintiff attempted to expose this scheme and asserted his constitutional rights, corporate managers, including Defendant Justin Schans, evaluator Stephanie Hobson, and client service representative Corine Wagoner, engaged in active, bad-faith retaliation. This culminated on June 10, 2026, in a deliberate administrative "no-show" telehealth trap designed to fabricated a false probation violation against the Plaintiff. Following immediate, multi-agency exposure and administrative pressure by the Plaintiff, Defendants capitulated on June 11, 2026, transmitting a 100% compliant, zero-recommendation assessment to the probation department, while simultaneously attempting to hide their actions behind an encrypted electronic barrier, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks immediate compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, class certification, and an order permanently halting the constitutional scheme. Plaintiff Mayank Prasad is currently subjected to court-ordered probation supervision under the MCAPD. Defendant Sage Counseling, Inc. operated as a state-contracted, private healthcare provider delegated with exclusive municipal authority to administer, monitor, and report on court-ordered probation assessments for MCAPD. Defendant Justin Schans is employed by Sage as its Quality Improvement (QI) and Compliance Director. Defendant Stephanie Hobson is employed by Sage as a clinical evaluator. Defendant Corine Wagoner is employed by Sage as a Client Service Associate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mayank Prasad, Plaintiff Pro Se SALT OF THE EARTH: Faces Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAWNYA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff v. SALT OF THE EARTH CO, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.DRINKSOTE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV18896(Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., June 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly present consumers with its automatic renewal offers or continuous service offer terms prior to a consumer completing a purchase. The complaint relates that on October 16, 2025, Plaintiff purchased "Salt of the Earth Natural Electrolytes" (the "Product") from Defendant via the Website at a price of $47.87. On November 16, 2025, Plaintiff's credit card account was charged by Defendant for $47.87 for the Product as part of a recurring monthly charge. After discovering such second charge to Plaintiff s credit card account by Defendant, Plaintiff cancelled the subscription shortly thereafter. According to the complaint, the Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL") by: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from the ongoing violations of California law, as well as seeks damages, punitive damages, restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff TAWNYA RODRIGUEZ a citizen of the State of California who purchased Defendant's product. Defendant SALT OF THE EARTH CO, LLC is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell @pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles @pacifictrialattorneys.com SANDISK CORP: Faces Bank Suit Over Flash Drive's Storage Capacity ----------------------------------------------------------------- TODD C. BANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANDISK CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03696 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a class action individually and intends to maintain it on behalf of all other persons who, during the statute-of-limitations periods governing their respective claims, purchased, through Amazon any of the following: "SanDisk 16GB Ultra USB 3.0 Flash Drive SDCZ48-016G-GAM46, Black"; "SANDISK 32GB Ultra USB 3.0 Flash Drive SDCZ48-032G-GAM46"; "SANDISK 64GB Ultra USB 3.0 Flash Drive SDCZ48-064G-GAM46, Black"; "SANDISK 128GB Ultra USB 3.0 Flash Drive SDCZ48-128G-GAM46, Black"; "SANDISK 256GB Ultra USB 3.0 Flash Drive SDCZ48-256G-GAM46, Black"; or "SANDISK 256GB Ultra USB 3.0 Flash Drive SDCZ48-512G-G46, Black" On December 14, 2025, Plaintiff Bank accessed the Product Listing and thereupon purchased The Product Listing contained, as its title, the name of one of the Flash Drives, one of which would initially appear in the Product Listing and each other of which would replace the current name upon a person's clicking of a box that contained only the following: “[X]GB,” the “X” being 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, or 512 (one such box was of the currently displayed Flash Drive), and "GB" meaning a gigabyte of one billion bytes; the price; and a delivery date if an order were placed. In the Product Listing, each version of the Flash Drive, when displayed, contained "[X] GB" next to the term "Memory Storage Capacity." The Capacity Representations referred to the storage capacity of the Flash Drives. Based upon the Capacity Representations, at least a significant portion of the purchasers of a Flash Drive reasonably believed that they would be able to store the applicable Represented Capacity of data on the Flash Drive; that is, these purchasers believed that the Flash Drives had a user storage capacity (User Storage Capacity) of the applicable Represented Capacity. The actual User Storage Capacities of the Flash Drives are materially less than the Represented Capacities, the suit says. Allegedly, Sandisk intended that the purchasers of the Flash Drives would believe that the User Storage Capacity was the applicable Represented Capacity. Sandisk has sold the Flash Drives through Amazon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 SANOFI-AVENTIS: Kirby Files False Ad Suit Over CoQ10 Product ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTA KIRBY and MARK RIVERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs vs. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC and QUTEN RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-07123 (D.N.J., June 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its false representations of Qunol Liquid CoQ10. The complaint relates that the Defendants advertise, market, and promote Qunol Liquid CoQ10 as having "superior absorption compared to regular CoQ10," along with other similar absorption and efficacy-related representations, which are false and/or misleading. Scientific testing has revealed that Qunol Liquid CoQ10 does not possess the absorption advantages Defendants promise consumers. Nevertheless, even after facing litigation, judicial scrutiny, and being subjected to a ten-year injunction for similar conduct, Defendants have returned to a pattern of false promises. Rather than course correcting, Defendants simply repackaged their false claims and proceeded to sell the same deception. Defendants' conduct reflects a deliberate and recurring pattern: identify a desirable product attribute, advertise it aggressively, charge consumers a premium for it, and ignore the science, asserts the complaint. Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact, lost money, and suffered an ascertainable loss at the time of purchase as a result of Defendants' conduct because they were exposed to and purchased, at a premium price, Liquid CoQ10 in reliance on Defendants' false representations, but did not receive the "superior absorption" they were promised, says the suit. Accordingly, this Action seeks to hold Defendants accountable for repeating the very conduct that got them in trouble over ten years ago, with the hope that this lesson finally sinks in. Plaintiff Christa Kirby is a citizen and resident of New Jersey and purchased Qunol-branded Liquid CoQ10 ("Liquid CoQ10") on May 19, 2026 for her own personal and household use and not for resale. Plaintiff Mark Rivers is a citizen and resident of California and purchased Liquid CoQ10 on May 14, 2026 for his own personal and household use and not for resale in California. Defendant Quten Research Institute, LLC labels, markets, and distributes Qunol products, including Liquid CoQ10. Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC is a leading global pharmaceutical company in the US.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Serina M. Vash, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 153 Central Avenue #131 Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: 862/250-3930 E-mail: svash@hermanjones.com - and - JOHN C. HERMAN, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: 404/504-6555 E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com - and - STUART A. DAVIDSON, Esq. FACUNDO M. SCIALPI, Esq. ISABELLE KLAYMAN, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: 561/750-3000 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com fscialpi@rgrdlaw.co SHAKALAKA BAKERY: Ren Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIANG QI REN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHAKALAKA BAKERY, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01694-GHW-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and its distribution process to the putative collective members; and 3. Directing production from the Defendant of a computer-readable file with the following information for all putative opt-in plaintiffs: names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, all known email addresses (work and personal), and dates of employment. Additionally, pursuant to Section III(a) of The Honorable Valerie Figueredo's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the parties have agreed on a proposed briefing schedule and request that the Court Order Defendant's opposition be due on July 13, 2026, and the Plaintiff's reply be due on July 28, 2026. The Defendant serves a variety of pastries and cakes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ngiGqx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: ravlli@vkvlawyers.com awhite@vkvlawyers.com SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Garcia Suit Over Digital Games Ownership ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Garcia, Edward Heycock, Jason Mendoza, and John Salinas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC, and Sony Corporation of America, Case No. 3:26-cv-06016 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) contends that PlayStation fails to clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumers at the point of sale that these transactions do not convey ownership of the digital games in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, PlayStation relegates this information to inconspicuous text or separate agreements that consumers are not required to affirmatively acknowledge. As a result, reasonable consumers are misled into believing that purchasing a digital game through PlayStation confers an unrestricted ownership interest, when in fact the transaction merely grants a limited license that may be restricted or revoked. The PlayStation operates one of the largest digital gaming marketplaces in the world through its PlayStation Store, where consumers can acquire digital video games for use on PlayStation consoles. The platform is operated by Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC, a subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America. Through the PlayStation Store, Defendants prominently use ownership language such as "Buy Now" and "Confirm Purchase" to induce consumers to complete transactions for digital games. In reality, consumers who "purchase" digital games through PlayStation do not obtain ownership of those products. Instead, PlayStation grants only a limited, revocable license to access the software, subject to multiple restrictions contained in a separate Software Product License Agreement. Plaintiff Andrew Garcia, a California resident, has spent hundreds of dollars on PlayStation digital goods over the past few years. Recent purchases include NBA 2k25 Standard Edition on March 27, 2025, for $20.99, NBA 2k26 on August 11, 2025, for $65.99, and EA Sports Madden NFL 26 on August 11, 2025, for $69.99. Mr. Garcia was not aware that the games he purchased were only a revocable license, leading him to pay more than he otherwise would have paid, depriving him of the benefit of the bargain. Sony Corporation of America is a subsidiary of Sony Group Corporation, which is a multinational corporation organized under the laws of Japan with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is a California entity with a registered agent at CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service, 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833. SIE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Group Corporation via intermediate holding companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Albert Pak, Esq. Noah Heinz, Esq. PAK HEINZ PLLC 20 F St. NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 505-6354 E-mail: Noah.Heinz@pakheinz.com Albert.Pak@pakheinz.com SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Time Extension to File Replies Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON STALLWORTH and JAHLEEL WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, v. SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04106-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to respond to certification and decertification motions. The parties request that the time within which they are required to respond to: 1) the Plaintiffs' motion for final certification of the FLSA Collective; 2) the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification; and 3) SEC's Motion to decertify the collective action, respectively, be extended to the period through and including July 8, 2026, with reply filings to be due fourteen days later on July 22, 2026. The parties aver that the requested extension will provide them and their attorneys with adequate time to respond to the pending certification and decertification motions. The request is neither interposed for the purpose of prejudice nor to work an undue hardship on any of the parties or for the purpose of delay. On June 10, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for final certification of the FLSA Collective and their Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. Southeast Connections provides energy infrastructure construction and maintenance services for the natural gas industry. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQEUKr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. H. Clara Coleman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: srey@nka.com ccoleman@nka.com - and - Eleanor M. Attwood, Esq. Marissa R. Torgerson, Esq. LEGARE, ATTWOOD & RAGAN, LLC 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 515 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (470) 823-4000 Facsimile: (470) 201-1212 E-mail: emattwood@law-llc.com mrtorgerson@law-llc.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua I. Bosin, Esq. Peter N. Hall, Esq. Antonia M. Moran, Esq. Anya M. Martin, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Regions Plaza, Suite 1800 1180 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 817-8500 E-mail: joshua.bosin@hklaw.com peter.hall@hklaw.com toni.moran@hklaw.com matthew.caplan@hklaw.com anya.martin@hklaw.com - and - Alex Bartko, Esq. ALEX BARTKO LAW Suite 500, Building 100 3715 Northside Parkway NW Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (470) 890-3285 E-mail: ab@alexbartkolaw.com ST URBAN: Herrera Suit Seeks to Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN HERRERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. ST URBAN NYC LLC, d/b/a SAINT URBAN, FRANK VITIELO, and JARED IAN STAFFORD-HILL, Case No. 1:26-cv-05170 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid minimum and overtime wages due to invalid tip credit deductions, (3) liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs their proper wages, including overtime, due to Defendants' time shaving. Further, the Defendants were not entitled to compensate Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs at a tip credit minimum wage hourly rate because they failed to satisfy all statutory requirements for taking a tip credit. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of all front-of-house and back-of-house employees, including but not limited to food runners, servers, counterpersons, hostesses, waiters, bussers, bartenders, porters, cashiers, dishwashers, kitchen staffs, food preparers, delivery persons, cooks, and line cooks, among others, employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of this Complaint. ST URBAN NYC LLC is a restaurant based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 STABILITY AI: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 14, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH ANDERSEN, ET AL., v. STABILITY AI LTD., ET AL., Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order regarding case schedule as follows: Close of expert discovery: Feb. 5, 2027 Deadline to file oppositions to motion April 14, 2027 for class certification, motion for summary judgment, and/or Dauberts: Deadline to file Replies in support of May 19, 2027 motion for class certification, motion for summary judgment, and/or Dauberts: Motion hearing on class certification, June 2, 2027 summary judgement, and/or Dauberts: Pretrial conference: Aug. 23, 2027 Trial: Sept. 20, 2027 Stability is an artificial intelligence company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6NMwDj at no extra charge.[CC] STELLA & DOT: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STELLA & DOT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04935 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.stelladot.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on April 30, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Boho Beaded Stretch Bracelets from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Stella & Dot LLC operates the website that offers jewelry products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal STELLAE INTERNATIONAL: $387K Settlement in Rivas Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SORAIDA LOPEZ RIVAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STELLAE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01716-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lee G. Dunst entered an order granting final approval of class and collective action settlement, final class certification, and award of attorneys' fees, costs, and service payment. -- The Court grants final certification, for settlement purposes only, of the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) (the "New York Class"): "All persons who work or have worked as manual workers, paid hourly on a biweekly basis, and worked for the Defendant Stellae International, Inc. at 50 Marcus Drive, Melville, New York 11747 and/or 780 Park Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743 between May 8, 2018 and Sept. 23, 2025." -- The Court grants final certification, for settlement purposes only, of the FLSA Collective consisting of: "all persons included in the New York Class definition who endorse their settlement checks." -- The Court appoints HKM Employment Attorneys LLP as Class Counsel and appoints Soraida Lopez Rivas as Class Representative. -- The Court awards attorneys' fees of $129,166.67 to HKM Employment Attorneys LLP as Class Counsel. -- The Court approves reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses of $22,580.71 to Class Counsel. -- The Court approves a Service Award of $5,000.00 to Named Plaintiff Soraida Lopez Rivas in recognition of her personal risk, time, and effort expended on behalf of the Class. -- The Court authorizes and directs the administration and distribution of the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Defendant shall deposit the Gross Settlement Amount of $387,500.00 into escrow within seven (7) days of this Order. Stellae specializes in warehousing, customs documentation, information technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7FHuRK at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN AUSTIN: Myers et al.'s Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOPHIA MYERS, KARA KAY, RYANN ALLISON, ELAINA AMADOR, BERKLEE ANDREWS, and MEAGAN LEDBETTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY ("SFA"), a member of THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM, Case No. 9:25-cv-00187-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Truncale entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant Stephen F. Austin's amended motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b). The Court dismisses without prejudice the claims of Sophia Myers, Kara Kay, Elaina Amador, Berklee Andrews, and Meagan Ledbetter. The Clerk is instructed to terminate Sophia Myers, Kara Kay, Elaina Amador, Berklee Andrews, and Meagan Ledbetter as parties in this action. Ryann Allison's and Taryn Clayton's claims, as well as the claims of those similarly situated to Allison and Clayton, remain pending. SFA asserts that the Court cannot infer non-compliance from the allegations and the current enrollment numbers. However, if what the Plaintiffs allege is accurate (which the Court must assume at the 12(b)(6) stage) and the Court draws all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor (which is also required), it is not speculative to say SFA is not in compliance. The Court therefore denies this portion of the Motion. It is unclear how Myers, Kay, Amador, Andrews, and Ledbetter could benefit from the declaratory relief. The Court therefore finds the requested declaratory relief as to them is also moot. However, it is not moot for Allison and Clayton, who may benefit. The Plaintiffs, female student-athletes at SFA, filed this class action lawsuit against SFA for alleged violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. They allege that SFA discriminated against them on the basis of sex by depriving them of equal opportunities to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics. On June 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and an emergency motion requesting a preliminary injunction The Defendant is a residential, four-year teaching and research university. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jZqc9h at no extra charge.[CC] STEVE MADDEN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Deceptive Spam Emails -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Kelly Isbell filed a class action lawsuit against Steve Madden Ltd. Why: Isbell alleges Steve Madden sends spam emails with deliberately false deadline claims to pressure consumers into purchases. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Steve Madden uses deceptive "false time scarcity" tactics in its marketing emails to manipulate Washington consumers into making rushed purchases. Plaintiff Kelly Isbell claims the footwear and apparel retailer routinely sends promotional emails with urgent subject lines -- such as "ENDS TONIGHT" and "FINAL HOURS" -- that falsely represent the limited availability of its sales and discounts. Isbell alleges Steve Madden's approach follows a calculated pattern: advertise a sale, send urgent countdown emails warning consumers the deal is expiring, and then quietly extend the same promotion after the advertised deadline has passed. The Steve Madden class action lawsuit argues that this spam email strategy "compels consumers to purchase quickly while withholding terms that consumers need so they can make informed buying decisions." Isbell claims she personally received an email titled "Final Call For 30% OFF SITEWIDE" on Nov. 28, 2025, and another titled "ALMOST OVER: 30% OFF SITEWIDE" on Nov. 29, 2025 -- both of which contained false subject lines, as fine print buried at the bottom of each email disclosed the promotion would not actually expire until Dec. 3, 2025. Isbell seeks to represent a class of all Washington citizens who received any of the misleading information as identified in the complaint during the class period. Steve Madden sent roughly 1,160 deceptive marketing emails annually, lawsuit claims The class action lawsuit alleges Steve Madden sent marketing emails at a rate of approximately 1,160 per year -- about 3.17 per day -- from 2023 to 2025, saturating Washington consumers' inboxes with false urgency claims across multiple sale events, including Black Friday, Cyber Monday and Labor Day promotions. The complaint documents how Steve Madden allegedly used the email marketing platform Ometria with Bird to orchestrate its campaigns and may have used IP address tracking and commercial data brokers to identify Washington recipients. Isbell asserts violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act and seeks injunctive relief, actual or liquidated damages trebled, and attorneys' fees. Meanwhile, Shein, one of the world's largest e-commerce platforms, is accused of using fake reference prices to mislead consumers into making purchases. Isbell is represented by Samuel J. Strauss and Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of Cohenmalad LLP; and Gerard J. Stranch IV, Michael C. Tackeff and Andrew K. Murray of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC. The Steve Madden class action lawsuit is Isbell v. Steve Madden Ltd., Case No. 2:26-cv-01348, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King. [GN] STITCH FIX: $32MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION LOCAL 338 RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STITCH FIX, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 5:22-cv-04893-PCP CLASS ACTION Courtroom: Courtroom 8 - 4th Floor Judge: Hon. P. Casey Pitts SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or acquired Stitch Fix, Inc. common stock from June 9, 2020 through June 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) Lead Plaintiffs Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund, Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Health & Welfare Fund, Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 General Fund, and Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Benefits Trust Fund and (ii) Defendants Stitch Fix, Inc. ("Stitch Fix" or the "Company"), Katrina Lake, and Elizabeth Spaulding have reached a proposed settlement of the Action on behalf of the Settlement Class for $32,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.2 A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on September 24, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable P. Casey Pitts, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, either in person in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor of the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things: (i) whether, for purposes of settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiffs should be appointed as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (ii) whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $300,000 (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website for the Settlement, www.StitchFixSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice. You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, by: (i) contacting the Claims Administrator at Stitch Fix Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173030, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-719-7072, info@StitchFixSecuritiesLitigation.com; or (ii) downloading them from the website for the Settlement, www.StitchFixSecuritiesLitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's website www.blbglaw.com. To be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than October 7, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Settlement proceeds, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than August 27, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be submitted to the Court. Objections must be filed or postmarked (if mailed) no later than August 27, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: Stitch Fix Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173030 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-877-719-7072 info@StitchFixSecuritiesLitigation.com www.StitchFixSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Northern District of California SUNRISE COMMUNITIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sullivan Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLA SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE COMMUNITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01640 (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek for Defendant. However, the Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all time spent performing work during unpaid overtime and off-the-clock. In addition, the Defendant failed to include the non-discretionary bonuses and incentive compensation in the regular rate calculation for purposes of determining overtime compensation, says the suit. Headquartered in Florida, Sunrise Communities, LLC is a manufactured housing and residential community company that operates and manages manufactured home communities and residential properties throughout the United States, including Illinois and Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P. A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Francisco Fernandez Del Castillo, Esq. DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E Adams Street #1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 216 0111 E-mail: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Iman Habel is suing Synchrony Bank. Why: Habel claims Synchrony Bank unlawfully attempted to collect an alleged debt from her. Where: The Synchrony Bank class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. How to get help: If you experienced debt collector harassment, you may be eligible to join a debt collection lawsuit investigation. A new class action lawsuit claims Synchrony Bank unlawfully attempted to collect on an alleged debt by using an artificial or prerecorded voice. Plaintiff Iman Habel's class action lawsuit alleges Synchrony Bank's actions violated both the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Habel claims Synchrony Bank's alleged unlawful collection practices invaded her privacy and caused her damages. "The California legislature determined that unfair or deceptive collection practices undermine the public confidence, which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking and credit system," the Synchrony Bank class action lawsuit says. Habel argues the California legislature enacted the RFDCPA to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts. Habel wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who Synchrony Bank allegedly called using a prerecorded voice after they had revoked consent to be called using such a method. Synchrony Bank ignored cease-and-desist letter, class action alleges Habel claims she fell into financial hardship in November 2025 and was unable to maintain regular monthly payments on a PayPal credit account she had with Synchrony Bank. Habel argues she sent a cease-and-desist letter to Synchrony Bank in January 2026 to inform the company she had retained counsel and that she was revoking any prior consent to call her via the use of a recorded voice. According to the complaint, the plaintiff revoked her consent to receive prerecorded calls and retained legal counsel regarding the debts on Jan. 12, 2026, but Synchrony representatives allegedly continued calling her cellphone with prerecorded voice messages more than 100 times afterward. Habel claims Synchrony Bank violated the RFDCPA and TCPA and is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and statutory damages for herself and all class members. In 2024, Synchrony Bank began issuing settlement payments in a class action lawsuit alleging it violated federal telemarketing laws by calling consumers about accounts that did not belong to them. The plaintiff is represented by Ahren A. Tiller and Brett F. Bodie of BLC Law Center APC. The Synchrony Bank class action lawsuit is Habel v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 3:26-cv-03349-AJB-BJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] TEAM HEALTH: Buncombe County Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., AMERITEAM SERVICES, LLC, and HCFS HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00420-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action against the Defendants. In further support of this motion, the County files herewith its brief in support of motion for class certification and associated exhibits. TeamHealth is a physician practice in the US. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WabiAK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona L. Wallace, Esq. John S. Hughes, Esq. Olivia B. Smith, Esq. WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A. 525 N. Main St. Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com osmith@wallacegraham.com - and - Mary Parker, Esq. PARKER & CROFFORD 5115 Maryland Way Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 244-2445 E-mail: mparker@parker-crofford.com - and - Janet Varnell, Esq. VARNELL AND WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave. Suite 201H, #105 Tampa FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com - and - Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Esq. John Bloss, Esq. Fred Berry, Esq. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC 301 N Elm St Suite 800 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 275-7577 E-mail: rnhunterjr@greensborolaw.com jbloss@greensborolaw.com fberry@greensborolaw.com TEAM HEALTH: Plaquemine Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF PLAQUEMINE AND RISK MANAGEMENT, INC. v. Team Health Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00111-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action against the Defendants. In further support of this motion, the County files herewith its brief in support of motion for class certification and associated exhibits. TeamHealth is a physician practice in the US. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YrkDJp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona L. Wallace, Esq. John S. Hughes, Esq. Olivia B. Smith, Esq. WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A. 525 N. Main St. Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com osmith@wallacegraham.com - and - Mary Parker, Esq. PARKER & CROFFORD 5115 Maryland Way Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 244-2445 E-mail: mparker@parker-crofford.com - and - Janet Varnell, Esq. VARNELL AND WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave. Suite 201H, #105 Tampa FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com - and - Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Esq. John Bloss, Esq. Fred Berry, Esq. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC 301 N Elm St Suite 800 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 275-7577 E-mail: rnhunterjr@greensborolaw.com jbloss@greensborolaw.com fberry@greensborolaw.com TEMU INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Spam Emails ------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Temu has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit over its alleged practice of bombarding California consumers with illegal spam emails whose purpose is to dupe unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore, in violation of state law. The 14-page Temu lawsuit claims that the online marketplace has "relentlessly" sent consumers spam emails replete with false subject lines, deceptive headers and spoofed domains to induce them to click on the supposedly anonymous messages. The filing says that consumers who engage with the spam emails are then funneled to Temu's website, which is loaded with hidden cookies and tracking pixels to capture and collect "deeply personal" information. The complaint says that the tracking technologies employed by Temu on its website allow the company and its partners to follow a consumer's behavior across the internet, "converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance." Per the case, the plaintiff received a spam email from a "nonsensical" email address with a misleading subject line stating "$0.01 False Nails -- Ends Soon." While attempting to determine the origin and legitimacy of the email, the suit says, the plaintiff was induced to click a link that led to Temu's website, which then secretly and illegally installed numerous tracking pixels that allowed data brokers such as Amplitude, Fastly, and Facebook Domain Insights to capture and sell his personal information, in violation of California's Trap and Trace Law. The filing says that Temu's emails constitute unwanted spam, as the plaintiff had no pre-existing business relationship with Temu or consent to receive such messages, and the emails were sent to advertise or promote the lease or sale of property, goods, services or extension of credit. Notably, the case says that the email's subject line was deceptive, as the claim that any product is available for "$0.01" on Temu's website is "literally false," a fact that the plaintiff apparently discovered after "scouring" the website, and is instead designed to trick consumers into clicking on the email. According to the class action lawsuit, Temu's spam emails contain metadata and embedded code that reflect "multiple indicia" of spam evasion and deceptive marking. The lawsuit says that the email sent to the plaintiff was clearly "spoofed," as it failed multiple authentication checks. Moreover, the filing notes that the email itself made use of "obfuscation techniques" that concealed the address of any embedded hyperlinks and monitored consumer's behavior through surreptitious tracking technologies. "The unauthorized domain name, misleading header and false subject line also invaded [p]laintiff's privacy and disrupted the ordinary use and enjoyment of [p]laintiff's email account, diminishing its value as a communication tool and necessitating additional filtering and security precautions," the complaint says. The Temu class action lawsuit seeks to cover all California citizens who received any commercial email promoting any of Temu's products or services at a California e-mail address where such email(s) contained (1) a falsified, misrepresented, or forged domain name; (2) falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information, or (3) false or misleading subject line or contents; or visited a website owned or operated by Temu using a web browser or mobile device and whose interactions, communications, or personally identifiable information were intercepted, collected or transmitted to any data brokers through the use of tracking pixels, cookies, or similar technologies without their knowledge or consent. [GN] TEXAS: Appeals Injunction, Class Cert., & Denied Dismissal Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- FREEMAN F. MARTIN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled L. M. L., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freeman F. Martin, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1170, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged civil rights violation. On May 4, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and a motion to certify class. On May 8, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to strike, a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and an amended motion to continue or deferral on hearing for class certification. On May 14, 2026, Judge David A. Ezra entered an Order mooting the Defendant's motion to continue, granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, denying the Defendant's motion to strike, granting in part and held in abeyance in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and denying the Defendant's motion to strike and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate case is styled as L. v. Martin, Case No. 26-50469, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees L. M. L., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Zachary Dolling, Esq. Kate Gibson Kumar, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT P.O. Box 17757 Austin, TX 78760 Telephone: (512) 474-5073 (512) 695-2326 - and - Cody Wofsy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0785 Defendant-Appellant FREEMAN F. MARTIN, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, is represented by: Monroe David Bryant, Jr., Esq. Daniel Ortner, Esq. TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 - and - Douglass Bowie Duncan, Esq. OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 300 W. 15th Street William P. Clements Building Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (830) 660-2738 - and - William R. Peterson, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 209 W. 14th Street Price Daniels Senior Building Austin, TX 78701 TRANSUNION LLC: Judge Certifies Sham Debt Collection Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit against TransUnion LLC. Why: The judge certified a class of more than 800,000 consumers in a lawsuit alleging TransUnion sold consumer reports to Liberty Credit Management. Where: The TransUnion class action lawsuit was certified in North Carolina federal court. A North Carolina federal court has certified a class action lawsuit alleging TransUnion sold consumer reports to Liberty Credit Management, a company accused of participating in a fraudulent debt collection scheme affecting more than 800,000 consumers. Judge Matthew E. Orso granted class certification and also rejected TransUnion's bid for summary judgment on the same day, putting the case on a path toward a jury trial. The judge found that whether TransUnion had reason to believe Liberty Credit Management would use the reports for a legitimate purpose is a common question applicable to all class members. Plaintiff Connie L. Jackson claims TransUnion sold her consumer report to Liberty Credit Management, an alleged sham debt collector with no legitimate claim to any debt she owed. Jackson says she received a threatening letter from a fake entity called "Blackwater Legal Group" demanding $980.76 for a debt she did not owe, warning of lawsuits, wage garnishment and credit damage to pressure her into paying. The class action lawsuit alleges TransUnion failed to adequately vet Liberty before granting it access to consumer reports and relied on certifications that Liberty would use the reports for permissible purposes. The certified class covers all U.S. residents who were the subject of a TransUnion collection prioritization engine report sold to Liberty Credit Management on or after August 12, 2019. FTC receiver report questioned legitimacy of Liberty office A court-appointed receiver in a parallel FTC enforcement action -- which named Blackrock Services Inc. as a co-conspirator in the debt collection scheme -- found Liberty's registered office was rented solely to satisfy TransUnion's physical office requirement and described it as having no equipment, files or personnel. The receiver concluded the operation was "incapable of operating a compliant debt collection operation" and that those behind the debt collection scheme destroyed records related to their activities. The TransUnion class action lawsuit alleges that "TransUnion made no real effort to vet Mitchell Evans and Liberty Credit Management before granting them access to purchase consumer reports." The lawsuit alleges that TransUnion sold Liberty more than 800,000 consumer reports between 2020 and 2025 despite warning signs that Liberty was not operating as a legitimate debt collector. Jackson and the certified class are seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per class member, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs following a trial by jury. In a separate ongoing TransUnion lawsuit, a Pennsylvania federal judge certified a class of nearly 281,000 consumers alleging TransUnion failed to block fraudulent transactions from credit reports. Jackson and the class are represented by Brett E. Dressler of Sellers Ayers Dortch & Lyons P.A., Drew D. Sarrett and Leonard A. Bennett of Consumer Litigation Associates P.C. and Stephen L. Flores of Flores Law PLLC. The TransUnion class action lawsuit is Jackson v. TransUnion LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01069, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. [GN] TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Lytle Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Liam Lytle, Maricruz Jimenez, and Carson Noel, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Missouri Corporation, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-18938 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00917-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. TriZetto Provider Solutions -- https://www.trizettoprovider.com/ -- is a healthcare technology company that specializes in revenue cycle management software and services for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shauna Brie Itri, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (267) 973-4265 Email: sitri@seegerweiss.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Fax: (973) 679-8656 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Thomas Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE LLP - Seattle 1809 Seventh Avenue Seattle, WA 98101, Suite 1610 Phone: (206) 802-1272 Fax: (206) 299-4184 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Michael Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3361 Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Noble Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Elizabeth Noble, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, GENESIS HEALTHCARE HOLDING COMPANY INC. doing business as: GENESIS HEALTHCARE, Case No. 2:25-cv-18967 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00918-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. TriZetto Provider Solutions -- https://www.trizettoprovider.com/ -- is a healthcare technology company that specializes in revenue cycle management software and services for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Michael Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3361 Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Sawyer Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joseph Sawyer, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-02698 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00917-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TriZetto Provider Solutions -- https://www.trizettoprovider.com/ -- is a healthcare technology company that specializes in revenue cycle management software and services for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX LLP - New York 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Michael Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3361 Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Wolf Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Wolf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Missouri Corporation, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-02344 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00922-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. TriZetto Provider Solutions -- https://www.trizettoprovider.com/ -- is a healthcare technology company that specializes in revenue cycle management software and services for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: ecf@laukaitislaw.com TRYAX REALTY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Richiez Suit Due July 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richiez v. Tryax Realty Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08578 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order granting letter motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- All discovery shall be completed by July 30, 2026 -- Any motion for class certification or collective certification shall be filed by July 30, 2026 -- The parties shall file a joint status letter by August 17, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Tryax owns and operates multifamily buildings.[CC] UNIFIN INC: Stallone Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Stallone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06907 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Unifin -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a digital debt collection agency offering secure online repayments, self service tools, and flexible options to help you resolve your account.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com UNION PACIFIC: Fitness-for-Duty Policies Violates ADA, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOEY M. BURNS v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 5:26-cv-03373 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) is a class action suit against the Defendant Union Pacific for damages resulting from its violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ADA). Beginning in 2014, Union Pacific implemented company-wide changes to its fitness-for-duty program (Fitness-for-Duty). As a result of these changes, Union Pacific imposed a blanket requirement that employees in certain positions disclose specified health conditions -- even where the condition had no impact on the employee's ability to safely perform his or her job. This requirement was needlessly invasive and violated the ADA by itself, but Union Pacific made matters worse by imposing a policy that automatically removed the employees disclosing these conditions from service. Union Pacific then subjected the employees to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation, again regardless of whether the employee had been safely performing the essential functions of his or her job. These evaluations do not assess whether an employee is fit for duty and Union Pacific does not conduct physical evaluations. Furthermore, it routinely disregards the opinions of outside doctors who provide physical evaluations of the employees, says the suit. Instead, Union Pacific demands medical information from the employee and conducts a "file review," falsely determining that the employee is unfit for duty, or issuing unnecessary work restrictions which it then refuses to accommodate. In February 2016, several Union Pacific employees commenced a class action disability discrimination lawsuit against Union Pacific, alleging that Union Pacific's Fitness-for Duty policies and practices constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination under the ADA. See Quinton Harris et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Case No. 8:16-cv-381 (D. Neb.). The District of Nebraska certified the class in February 2019; however, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the certification decision in March 2020. Burns is a victim of the same discriminatory Fitness-for-Duty policies and practices alleged in Harris. Despite being qualified and safely performing his job without incident, Burns was removed from service for a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation under the new program and excluded from work at Union Pacific on the basis of his disability, the suit further contends. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY provides rail transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony S. Petru, Esq. Gavin Barney, Esq. HILDEBRAND MCLEOD & NELSON 5335 College Avenue, Suite 5A Oakland, CA 94618 Telephone: (510) 451-6732 E-mail: petru@hmnlaw.com barney@hmnlaw.com UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Davis Due Jan. 22, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK DAVIS, SR., MATHEW KOOHNS, and BRETT A. LOCKHART, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED HEALTH CARE OF WASHINGTON, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01220-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order granting the joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Substantial completion of fact discovery: Dec. 11, 2026 Disclosure of the Plaintiffs' class Jan. 8, 2027 certification expert name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected testimony: Class certification motion and service of Jan. 22, 2027 the Plaintiffs' class-certification expert report (if any): Disclosure of the Defendants' class Feb. 19, 2027 certification expert name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected testimony: Opposition to class certification and March 12, 2027 service of the Defendants' class- certification expert report (if any): Reply to class certification and service April 9, 2027 of rebuttal class-certification expert report (if any): UnitedHealth is an American multinational for-profit company specializing in health insurance and health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqYo9b at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Rietheimer Seeks to Certify Employee Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON RIETHEIMER, and those similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00477-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class, appointing him as class representative, appointing J. Bennett Lebsack and Sara N. Maeglin, Lowrey Parady Lebsack DeFazio, LLC, as class counsel, and approving the proposed notice plan. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of: "Individuals who were employed by Defendant UPS in Colorado under its collective bargaining agreement for at least 30 hours between Jan. 1, 2021, and July 8, 2022." In 2021 and the first half of 2022, Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., (UPS) employed over 15,000 union workers in Colorado subject to the same collective bargaining agreement. UPS did not provide these workers with paid sick leave as the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act (HFWA) requires. UPS allegedly had no policy or written procedure for paid sick leave and failed to track the accrual or use of paid sick leave until July 2022. United is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bJjfJN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Bennett Lebsack, Esq. Sara N. Maeglin, Esq. LOWREY PARADY LEBSACK DEFAZIO, LLC 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 304 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 593-2595 E-mail: ben@lowrey-parady.com sm@lowrey-parady.com UNITED STATES VETERANS: Sawyer Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The United States Veterans Administration, et al. The case is styled as Kevin Sawyer, and other Veterans Similarly situated v. The United States Veterans Administration, Case No. 1:26-cv-12672-ADB (D. Mass., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) -- https://www.va.gov/ -- runs programs benefiting veterans and members of their families.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STATES: McCray Files Suit in D. Oregon --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of America. The case is styled as Emanuel McCray, also known as: "Trump Genius," on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. United States of America; Anthony Stephen Fauci, In His Official Capacity as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious ) Diseases; United States Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Atlas Genomics, LLC, A United States CLIA-Certified Laboratory; X Corp.; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Case No. 3:26-cv-01193-SB (D. Ore., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. The United States of America -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is one of the world's largest countries by both land area and population.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Scott E. Bradford, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 727-1040 Fax: (503) 727-1117 Email: scott.bradford@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Sabogal Wins Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONET RICARDO GAMEZ SABOGAL, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of Homeland Security; DAVID J. VENTURELLA, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office Director of the San Diego Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; JORGE VELARDE, Assistant Field Office Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Otay Mesa Detention Center; CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE; Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, Case No. 3:26-cv-03418-JES-BJW (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Simmons Jr. entered an order granting petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. (1) The Court orders the Government to provide the noncitizen with a bond determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), Within 14 days of this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance; (2) At the bond hearing, the Government may not deny the noncitizen bond, solely on the basis that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2); (3) The Government is ordered to file a Notice of Compliance within five (5) days of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing; and (4) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this suit. The Petitioner was not apprehended at or near the border. He has resided in the United States and has been in Respondents' custody since April 21, 2026, well after entering the country in 2022. These facts make clear that Petitioner "was not actively entering, attempting to enter or had recently entered, the country when apprehended." Accordingly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), not 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b), governs Petitioner's detention. The Petitioner is a 37-year-old Venezuelan national who entered the United States, without inspection or admission, on Dec. 15, 2022, and has since been gainfully employed. On April 19, 2026, while driving in Miami, Florida, Petitioner was pulled over for a traffic violation by local law enforcement. Police searched his vehicle and found a marijuana vape pen; because Petitioner did not possess a medical license required to possess such an item under Florida law, he was arrested. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xVtXtG at no extra charge.[CC] VIRGIN ISLANDS WAPA: Dismissal of KH Overbilling Class Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KH; GORDON ACKLEY; RV; JOHANN CLENDENIN; JEAN PERSAD; et al., v. VIRGIN ISLANDS WATER & POWER AUTHORITY; TANTALUS SYSTEMS, INC. a/k/a TANTALUS SYSTEMS CORP.; ITRON, INC.; ANDREW SMITH; JOHN DOES 1-10 GORDON ACKLEY; JOHANN CLENDENIN; KERRY HARRIGAN; CLIFFORD JOSEPH; RAYMOND VICTORINE; et al., Appellants in 25-1916, GORDON ACKLEY; JOHANN CLENDENIN; LEONARD STEPHEN; CATHERINE STEPHEN; THE FRUIT BOWL, INC. Appellants in 25-3435, Case Nos. 25-1916 & 25-3435 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissals, grant of summary judgment, discovery stay, and exclusion of witness testimony. The Appellants, representative electricity ratepayers, filed a putative class action against the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VIWAPA), Tantalus, and Itron, alleging that faulty metering systems caused electricity overbilling and service disconnection notices. Itron and Tantalus successfully moved to dismiss the Appellants' failure-to-warn and territorial consumer fraud claims, while VIWAPA obtained summary judgment on the Appellants' Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. During the litigation, the Magistrate Judge stayed discovery, and the district court later struck certain witness testimony for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The Appellants challenged these decisions. The Third Circuit held that the Appellants failed to state a claim under the Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (CFDBPA) because the sale of the electric metering system by Itron and Tantalus to VIWAPA was a commercial transaction with a public utility, not a consumer sale covered by the statute. The Third Circuit also held that the Appellants lacked Article III standing to pursue their failure-to-warn claim against Tantalus and Itron because they alleged only a speculative risk of a future cyberattack, not an actual or imminent injury. The district court therefore properly dismissed the claim. The Third Circuit further held that the Appellants forfeited their challenge to the Magistrate Judge's discovery stay by failing to object before the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Finding no exceptional circumstances to excuse the forfeiture, the court declined to review the issue. As to the remaining procedural due process claim against VIWAPA, the Third Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding certain non-party witness declarations for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, rejecting the Appellants' argument that the declarations qualified as impeachment evidence. Finally, the Third Circuit held that, although the Appellants alleged overbilling and the threat of service disconnection, they failed to show those harms resulted from a denial of procedural due process. The district court therefore properly granted summary judgment to VIWAPA. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/hQCWv2nu3 VXN GROUP: Thoma Can File Class Exhibit Under Seal -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE ANNE THOMA, a.k.a. KENZIE ANNE, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VXN GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MIKE MILLER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04901-WLH-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application for leave to file under seal exhibit from the Plaintiff's compendium of exhibits in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The following exhibit shall be filed under seal: Description Produced By Status Exhibit Classic Blacked Defendants Confidential E Criteria-Redacted VXN is a corporate entity primarily known in the entertainment and production sectors. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sdvqu2 at no extra charge.[CC] W6LS INC: 7th Circuit Affirms Arbitration Denial in Harris Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA HARRIS and DONITA OLDS, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members described herein, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. W6LS, INC., doing business as WITHU and WITHU LOANS, and CALIBER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 24-2056 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Defendant W6LS offers consumer loans online as "WithU Loans." Caliber manages the underwriting and collection of the online loans given out by W6LS. W6LS and Caliber are corporations organized under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians. The Tribe maintains an ownership stake in the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are two Illinois citizens who took out online loans from WithU in 2022 and 2023. Harris borrowed $600 with an annual interest rate of 498.63%. Olds similarly took out a $600 loan at an annual interest rate of 497.25%. Both of the loans violate Illinois's statutory limits on interest. Harris and Olds entered into loan agreements containing arbitration provisions that delegated questions of arbitrability, enforceability, formation, and scope to the arbitrator. The agreements required the arbitrator to apply only Otoe-Missouria tribal law and applicable federal law, expressly excluding state law. Although the Otoe-Missouria Tribe later adopted a Tribal Contract Code that applies retroactively to certain contracts, the code was not in effect when the loans were executed. The code addresses contract formation and enforcement but does not include an unconscionability doctrine or impose limits on loan interest rates. The agreements further provided that neither the loans nor the arbitration provisions would be governed by the borrowers' state laws or the laws of any other state. Harris and Olds filed a putative class action against W6LS and Caliber for violations of Illinois's rate-cap and other consumer-protection statutes, as well as the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, which the district court denied. The district court's denial turned on the "prospective waiver" doctrine: it found both the delegation provision and the Arbitration Agreement unenforceable because compelling arbitration under exclusively tribal or "applicable federal law" forced the Plaintiffs to prospectively waive their substantive rights under Illinois law. The Defendants immediately appealed the denial as permitted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Seventh Circuit held that the Defendants drafted an arbitration agreement directing an arbitrator to apply a body of law that did not exist, which they maintained a unilateral ability to invent. Absent any indication that the Plaintiffs intended this, the Court found no mutual assent. It, therefore, affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://lnk.ua/aKAeyWkf8 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Coleman Labor Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as THERESA COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 609246/2026, was removed from the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03515 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Walmart violated New York Labor Laws by allegedly denying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay, business-expense reimbursements, and compensation for work performed off-the-clock. She also claims that, among other violations of New York law, Walmart failed to pay her and the putative class for days she worked 10 or more hours, violated New York's pay frequency laws, and failed to provide her adequate days of rest. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that Walmart did not provide her and putative class members legally compliant wage statements and notices. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. operates retail stores in New York and other locations throughout the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Natalie F. Bare, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 972-5934 E-mail: Natalie.Bare@gtlaw.com - and - Aaron T. Winn, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2522 E-mail: Aaron.Winn@gtlaw.com - and - Shira M. Poliak, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 801-9200 E-mail: Shira.Poliak@gtlaw.com WATERSTREET COMPANY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notice that the March 2025 WaterStreet Company data breach may have compromised their private information could qualify to submit a claim for up to $3,000 and/or credit monitoring from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity incident impacted 70,072 people. WaterStreet Co. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment after a cyber incident exposed sensitive personal information, including names, Social Security numbers, bank account information and taxpayer identification numbers. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States who received a notice indicating the WaterStreet Co. data breach may have impacted their private information. How much can class members get? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment A -- documented losses: Class members can claim up to $3,000 in documented out-of-pocket losses traceable to the data breach that occurred between March 17, 2025, and Aug. 19, 2026. Eligible expenses include monetary losses from identity theft or fraud, fees for credit reports or freezing/unfreezing credit, costs to replace IDs and postage to contact financial institutions. -- Cash payment B -- alternate cash: Class members who do not submit a documented losses claim can submit a claim to receive a one-time cash payment estimated at $55. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Credit monitoring: All class members can elect to receive three years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete. Services include monitoring for fraud and identity theft, unauthorized financial transactions, personal information associated with high-risk transactions and $1 million in financial fraud insurance. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: WaterStreet Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 The claim deadline is Aug. 19, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- To submit a claim online, class members must provide the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. -- Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges and other proof of identity theft or fraud. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $282,500 -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by the number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Up to $500,000 total Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 4, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 19, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 3, 2026 When is the WaterStreet Company data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and credit monitoring information to approved claimants no later than 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed WaterStreet Co. experienced a data breach on March 17, 2025, that resulted in unauthorized access to files containing sensitive personal information. The plaintiffs alleged WaterStreet was negligent, breached implied contracts and received unjust enrichment by failing to protect this information. WaterStreet denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $3,000 and/or credit monitoring Deadline: August 19, 2026 [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: Standing Dismissal in Foster Care Class Suit Flipped ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of JONATHAN R., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; ANASTASIA M., minor, by Next Friend, Cheryl Ord; SERENA S., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; THEO S., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GARRETT M., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GRETCHEN C., minor, by Next Friend, Cathy L. Greiner; DENNIS R., minor, by Next Friend, Debbie Stone; CHRIS K., CALVIN K., and CAROLINA K., minors, by Next Friend, Katherine Huffman; KARTER W., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; ACE L., minor, by Next Friend, Isabelle Santillion; and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PATRICK MORRISEY, in his official capacity as the Governor of West Virginia; ALEX J. MAYER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Human Services; CAMMIE CHAPMAN, in her official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources; LORI BRAGG, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the Bureau for Social Service; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees. LAW SCHOLARS; THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW AND 32 ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES; THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION; THE NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM; THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, Amici Supporting Appellants. THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER; STATES OF ALASKA; ALABAMA; ARKANSAS; DELAWARE; FLORIDA; GEORGIA; IDAHO; IOWA; KANSAS; LOUISIANA; MISSISSIPPI; NEBRASKA; NEW HAMPSHIRE; NORTH DAKOTA; SOUTH CAROLINA; TEXAS, Amici Supporting Appellees. JONATHAN R., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; ANASTASIA M., minor, by Next Friend, Cheryl Ord; SERENA S., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; THEO S., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GARRETT M., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GRETCHEN C., minor, by Next Friend, Cathy L. Greiner; DENNIS R., minor, by Next Friend, Debbie Stone; CHRIS K.; CALVIN K., and; CAROLINA K., minors, by Next Friend, Katherine Huffman; KARTER W., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; ACE L., minor, by Next Friend, Isabelle Santillion, Plaintiffs-Appellees, PATRICK MORRISEY, in his official capacity as the Governor of West Virginia; ALEX J. MAYER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Human Services; LORI BRAGG, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the Bureau for Social Services; CAMMIE CHAPMAN, in her official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants. THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER; STATES OF ALASKA; ALABAMA; ARKANSAS; DELAWARE; FLORIDA; GEORGIA; IDAHO; IOWA; KANSAS; LOUISIANA; MISSISSIPPI; NEBRASKA; NEW HAMPSHIRE; NORTH DAKOTA; SOUTH CAROLINA; TEXAS, Amici Supporting Appellants. LAW SCHOLARS; THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW AND 32 ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES; THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION; THE NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM; THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, Amici Supporting Appellees, Case Nos. 25-1232, 25-1239 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court granting West Virginia's motion for summary judgment. The appeal arose from a long-running class action brought on behalf of thousands of West Virginia foster children against state officials. After previously reversing an earlier dismissal of Jonathan R. ex rel. Dixon v. Justice (Jonathan R. I), 41 F.4th 316 (4th Cir. 2022), the Fourth Circuit considered whether the district court had the authority to grant the injunctive and declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiffs following a second dismissal. On September 30, 2019, 12 children in foster care filed a class action against West Virginia officials, including Governor Jim Justice and the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), alleging systemic failures in the state's foster care system. Since then, the agency has been reorganized, and oversight of foster care has been transferred to the Department of Human Services (DHS). The Plaintiffs sought to certify a General Class of approximately 6,800 children in West Virginia's foster care system, along with a Kinship Subclass for children placed with relatives, an ADA Subclass for children with disabilities, and an Aging Out Subclass for children age 14 and older nearing emancipation from foster care. The alleged systemic abuses and rights violations had previously been detailed by the Fourth Circuit in Jonathan R. I. The Plaintiffs alleged widespread systemic failures in West Virginia's foster care system, including high rates of abuse and neglect, inadequate placements, understaffing, delays in case assessments, overreliance on institutional care, and insufficient in-home health services. They claimed these conditions violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment, Ninth Amendment, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act Ultimately, the Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief declaring West Virginia's foster care practices unconstitutional and unlawful, along with injunctive relief requiring DHHR to improve the state's foster care system. Their requested reforms included independent needs assessments, timely child evaluations and case plans, prompt delivery of identified services, safe foster placements, increased staffing of qualified caseworkers, and the implementation of a statewide reform plan overseen by a court-appointed monitor. In 2023, the district court dismissed the case, finding the adopted plaintiffs' claims moot and concluding that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), barred federal review. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that neither mootness nor abstention applied. On remand, the district court certified the General Class and ADA Subclass, denied certification of the remaining subclasses, and the parties completed extensive discovery as the case was set for trial. In July 2024, West Virginia moved for summary judgment, but before ruling on the motion, the district court sua sponte dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of Article III standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), without providing notice or an opportunity for briefing. The court concluded it lacked authority to grant the requested injunctive or declaratory relief because the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the redressability requirement for standing. The Plaintiffs appealed the sua sponte dismissal, seeking reversal and reassignment to a different district court judge. West Virginia argued that the dismissal should be affirmed based on the Plaintiffs' failure to establish redressability or injury in fact, and filed a conditional cross-appeal seeking decertification of the certified classes if the Fourth Circuit reversed. The Fourth Circuit explained that the appeal centered on whether federal courts have the authority to grant relief for alleged systemic violations within a state institution. It noted that the district court dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing, concluding the Plaintiffs failed to establish the required elements of injury in fact, traceability, and redressability. The Fourth Circuit held that at least one named Plaintiff alleged ongoing injuries that could likely be redressed through the requested injunctive and declaratory relief. Because the alleged injuries were traceable to West Virginia's actions and satisfied the requirements for Article III standing, the Plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims. The Fourth Circuit also denied the Plaintiffs' request to reassign the case to a different district judge, finding no evidence of bias, no reason to believe the judge could not set aside prior rulings, and no appearance-of-justice concerns warranting reassignment, particularly given the case's lengthy history and advanced stage. As to West Virginia's cross-appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that its reversal of the dismissal rendered the class certification order interlocutory again. Because the deadline to challenge class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) had long passed, the cross-appeal could not be considered until a final judgment is entered. For these reasons, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/9GAulFsqe. ARGUED: Laura Welikson -- lwelikson@abetterchildhood.org -- A BETTER CHILDHOOD, New York, New York, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Michael Ray Williams -- michael.r.williams@wvago.gov -- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Marcia Robinson Lowry -- marcia@abetterchildhood.org -- Julia K. Tabor -- jtabor@abetterchildhood.org -- Robyn Goldberg, John Hazelwood, David Baloche, A BETTER CHILDHOOD, New York, New York; Richard W. Walters -- rwalters@shafferlaw.net -- J. Alexander Meade, SHAFFER & SHAFFER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Nicholas Ward, DISABILITY RIGHTS OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. John B. McCuskey -- constituent@wvago.gov -- Attorney General, Holly J. Wilson, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Caleb B. David, Deputy Solicitor General, Frankie A. Dame, Assistant Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. J. Michael Showalter -- j.michael.showalter@afslaw.com -- Sarah L. Lode -- sarah.lode@afslaw.com -- Samuel A. Rasche -- Sam.Rasche@afslaw.com --ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amici the National Health Law Program, the Arc of the United States, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the Center for Public Representation. Hannah Benton Eidsath -- hbenton@youthlaw.org -- Jean Strout -- jstrout@youthlaw.org. -- NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW, Oakland, California; Krishna Shah, San Francisco, California, Daniel Albert-Rozenberg, Boston, Massachusetts, Sydney Leigh Martin, Mauni Jalali, Los Angeles, California, Todd Anten -- toddanten@quinnemanuel.com -- Maura Grealish -- mgrealish@omm.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, New York, for Amici National Center for Youth Law and 32 Additional Organizations. Virginia M. Creighton -- creighton@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Amici Law Scholars. Reilly Stephens -- rstephens@libertyjustice-center.org -- LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER, Austin, Texas; Joel S. Nolette -- jnolette@wiley.law -- WILEY REIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Liberty Justice Center. Treg Taylor -- attorney.general@alaska.gov -- Attorney General, Laura Fox -- laura.fox@alaska.gov -- Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Paton Walsh -- margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov -- Assistant Attorney General, Katherine Demerest -- kate.demarest@alaska.gov -- Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALASKA, Anchorage, Alaska, for Amicus State of Alaska. Steve Marshall -- constituentaffairs@alabamaag.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, Montgomery, Alabama, for Amicus State of Alabama. Tim Griffin -- oag@arkansasag.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, Little Rock, Arkansas, for Amicus State of Arkansas. Kathleen Jennings -- attorney.general@delaware.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE, Wilmington, Delaware, for Amicus State of Delaware. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus State of Florida. Christopher M. Carr -- AGCarr@law.ga.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, Atlanta, Georgia, for Amicus State of Georgia. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IOWA, Des Moines, Iowa, for Amicus State of Iowa. Raúl Labrador -- AGLabrador@ag.idaho.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IDAHO, Boise, Idaho, for Amicus State of Idaho. Kris W. Kobach, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS, Topeka, Kansas, for Amicus State of Kansas. Liz Murrill -- constituentservices@ag.louisiana.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Amicus State of Louisiana. Lynn Fitch, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSISSIPPI, Jackson, Mississippi, for Amicus State of Mississippi. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, Lincoln, Nebraska, for Amicus State of Nebraska. John Formella -- attorneygeneral@doj.nh.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Concord, New Hampshire, for Amicus State of New Hampshire. Drew Wrigley -- ndag@nd.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bismarck, North Dakota, for Amicus State of North Dakota. Alan Wilson, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Amicus State of South Carolina. Ken Paxton -- ken.paxton@oag.texas.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Austin, Texas, for Amicus State of Texas. WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Filing of Amended Complaint Due July 6 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENI QUIRICONI, et al., v. WESTROCK LONGVIEW LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-05977-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Cartwright entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' private nuisance claim is dismissed without prejudice and their request for leave to amend is granted. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint no later than July 6, 2026. The parties are further ordered to provide an updated joint status report no later than June 22, 2026 proposing a case schedule for discovery and class certification motions. The Plaintiffs fail to provide factual allegations of intentional conduct by Andrews beyond conclusory statements. The Court therefore grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' private nuisance claim. Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, the facts are sufficient to find that the Defendant's emissions caused Plaintiffs' harm. The Court therefore denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' negligence claim. The Plaintiffs allege that the paper mill releases noxious and foul-smelling odors causing nausea and airway irritation. The Plaintiffs are a putative class of: "All owner/occupants and renters of residential property residing within 2.25 miles of the Facility at any time within the applicable statute of limitations." The Defendant owns and operates an integrated pulp paper mill and corrugated box plant. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oRksTA at no extra charge.[CC] WP COMPANY LLC: Blink Files Suit in D.C. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WP Company LLC. The case is styled as Chelsea Blink, on Behalf of herself and all Others Similarly Situated v. WP Company LLC doing business as The Washington Post, Case No. 2026-CAB-004031 (D.C. Super. Ct., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." WP Company LLC doing business as The Washington Post -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/ -- is a liberal American daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Simplicio, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-998-2299 Email: ksimplicio@clarksonlawfirm.com XSOLIS INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Spencer-Harris Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LYRIS SPENCER-HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XSOLIS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00817 (M.D. Tenn., June 15, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, Advent Health is a customer of Defendant and uses Defendant's utilization management services across its network. Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about the current and former patients of Defendant's customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on January 20, 2026. The following types of PII/PHI were compromised: Names; Addresses; Date of birth; Health insurance information; Social Security numbers; and Medical treatment information. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. The size of the putative class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody and control. And the putative class is over one hundred members as it includes the current and former patients of Defendant's customers. And yet, Defendant waited over until June 5, 2026 before it began notifying the class -- a full 136 days after the Data Breach began. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft. Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate her injuries, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Lyris Spencer-Harris is a former patient of AdventHealth systems. Defendant Xsolis, Inc. is a healthcare technology company that uses AI and data analytics to help hospitals, health systems, and payers make more objective medical-necessity and utilization-management decisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ZILLOW GROUP: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZILLOW GROUP, INC., et al. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 24-6605, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dated September 26, 2025, in the case captioned Jeremy Jaeger vs. Zillow Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1365. Defendants-Petitioners Zillow Group, Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shay Dvoretzky, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7370 Email: shay.dvoretzky@skadden.com ZUMBA FITNESS: Kueppers Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE KUEPPERS; and WATANYA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZUMBA FITNESS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61983-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Class and Subclasses, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel at Hedin LLP, Frank S. Hedin and Tyler K. Somes, as class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Class and three Subclasses as follows: Class comprised of: "All natural persons in the United States who purchased the ZB1 OD Version from the Website, and whose first and last names appeared on "order confirmation pages" accessible at ZB1 OD Version Order URLs in the possession of one or more Third-Party Advertisers, between Oct. 22, 2022, and Oct. 22, 2024." Meta Disclosure Subclass comprised of: "all members of the Class whose first and last names appeared on "order confirmation pages" accessible at ZB1 OD Version Order URLs in the possession of Meta." Pinterest Disclosure Subclass comprised of "all members of the Class whose first and last names appeared on "order confirmation pages" accessible at ZB1 OD Version Order URLs in the possession of Pinterest." MNTN Disclosure Subclass comprised of: "all members of the Class whose first and last names appeared on "order confirmation pages" accessible at ZB1 OD Version Order URLs in the possession of MNTN." Based on the brazen nature of the Defendant's disclosures, the Plaintiffs and their expert have already identified, by first and last name, each person whose information was transmitted to and received by each of the third-party advertising companies in question. Zumba provides fitness products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K1EBcj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank Hedin, Esq. Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3332 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com tsomes@hedinllp.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***