260630.mbx

260630.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 30, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 129 Headlines 1023 MONTEREY: Case Management Order Entered in Coronitas Suit 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ardi Alleges 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Askins Says 3M COMPANY: MayBrook Fire PFAS Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ABACO POLARIZED: Simmons Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ABBOTT LAB: Munruddin Bid to Compel Further Responses OK'd ABM AVIATION: Appeals Arbitration Order in Kelly Suit to 9th Cir. ADMA BIOLOGICS: Mazzarino Sues Over Decline of Stock Price AEROVIRONMENT INC: Settlement Deal Reached Labor Class Suit ALTIUS INSPIRO: Walters FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to File Surreply Brief in Antitrust Suit OK'd AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Cross Due March 15, 2027 AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert. Daubert Briefing Sealing Order Entered AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 12, 2027 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rai Due Feb. 12, 2027 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Vincenzetti Seeks to Certify Classes AMAZON.COM: Dismissal of IMWL Overtime Claim in Johnson Reversed AMBER SUNDQUIST: White Seeks to Certify Class Action AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Winchester Due August 4 AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails AMERICAN GOLF: Dimofski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN HONDA: Fausto Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir. AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 8, 2027 AMERICAN USED AUTO: Partial Bid to Dismiss De Souza Suit Tossed APEX ADVISING LLC: Brownlee Suit Removed to N.D. California APOGEE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to AbbVie Inc. APPLE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in UK, $4-Bil. Payout at Stake ARAMARK SERVICES: Settlement in Kelly Suit Gets Final Nod ARCOSA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to CRH Americas ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Starkes Sues Over Unsecured Private Data ASURION INSURANCE: Wood Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations AUSTRALIA: Court Approves Robodebt Suit Settlement Up to $548.5MM AUTOBAY LLC: Sued Over Improper Denial of Insurance Coverage AXALTA COATING: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Akzo Nobel BAYOU TITLE: Johnson Suit Removed from State Court to E.D. La. BEENA BEAUTY HOLDING: Weakley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BELL PARTNERS: Wilson Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification BETTER RISE CAPITAL: Charles Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California BEUSA ENERGY LLC: Boussenane Files Suit in Tex. Ct. BIG Y FOODS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA, Akey Says BIMBO BAKERIES: Pearson-Martinez Sues Over Deceptive Advertising BKF ENGINEERS: Batchelor Case Remanded to San Mateo Superior Court BLACK ROCK: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D.N.Y. BOWERY RESIDENTS': Yearwood Seeks Conditional Collective Status BRIAN ENGLISH: Blanche Dismissed w/o Prejudice as Attorney General BROOKLINEN INC: Intercepts Website Users' communications, Suit Says BUILT BRANDS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Malone Suit Due Dec. 15 BUREAU OF PRISONS: Love Wins Bid for Class Certification CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE: $1.75MM Settlement Final Hearing on Aug 13 CALIFORNIA: Bid to Strike Friedman's Supplemental Report Tossed CAMDEN PROPERTY: Pitchford Sues Over Deceptive Apartment Pricing CAPITAL ONE: Shah Loses Bid for Class Certification CARMAX AUTO: Medina Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Parties Must File Status Report by August 19 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Seeks Class Cert. Status Conference CHINA INTERNATIONAL: Conspires to Fix Containers' Prices, Suit Says CHRIS PIAETE: Class Cert Bid Fling in Talamante Suit Due Oct. 12 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Mendoza Wins Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus COLORADO: Knellinger Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification COLUMBIA ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach COMPASS GROUP: Class Cert. Filing Due August 3 COOKUNITY INC: Wildman Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. CROCS INC: Mongalo Seeks to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal DANAHER CORPORATION: Nadeau Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid DAYLIGHT FOODS: Arreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DEL MAR LAW: Cal. App. Affirms Citizens Malicious Prosecution Loss DELAWARE NORTH: Love Sues Over Compromised Clients' Personal Info DEVON ENERGY: Class Settlement in Kunneman Suit Gets Initial Nod DOE THE SURGEON: Initial CMC Entered in Farmer Suit DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deactivated Seattle Dashers DRINK BREZ: James Sues Over Automatic Paid Subscription Renewal DUPONT: "Bower" Wage Suit Wins Conditional Certification ELMPARK MANOR: Court OKs CAD$650,000 Deal in Apartment Fire Suit EQUIMINE INC: Moreland Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. FCA US: Bid to Dismiss McNeely Suit Junked FINANCIAL CORP: O'Neill Balks at For-Cause Removal Provision FIRST FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Suit for $300,000 FIRST NATIONAL: McAuley Fraud Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. FISHWOODCO: Renewed Bid to Confirm Arbitration Award Partly OK'd FORD MOTOR: Loses Bid to Exclude Expert in F-150 Transmission Suit FORD MOTOR: Wins Bid to Exclude Yadav's Testimony in Dolan Suit FOREMOST RETIREMENT: Faces Araque Employment Suit in Cal. Super. FOX ROTHSCHILD: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Smith Says GASTRO HEALTH: Faces Hoffman Class Suit in S.D. Fla. GENERAL MOTORS: Helms Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GENESETT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due July 22 GEODIS LOGISTICS: Duvall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. GO RAW: Faces Free Class Suit Over Cat Food Nutritional Defect GOLABS INC: Faces Castillo Suit Over GoTrax Products' Fake Sales GOLD STAR: Jones Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in May Suit Due Oct. 9 HARBOR PIPE: Renewed Arbitration Petition Denial in Rojas Affirmed HARRISON, NY: Discovery Order Entered in 3086 Purchase Suit HITACHI RAIL: Turgut Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal HITACHI RAIL: Turgut Suit Seeks to Certify Late Pay Class HUNTER ASSOCIATES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach HYATT CORPORATION: Hasty Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses HYUNDAI MOTOR: Pretrial and Trial Dates in Hhageman Vacated I.A.C. INC: Moss Alleges Failure to Protect Clients' Personal Info IDAHO: Edney Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid IHG MANAGEMENT: Higareda Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code INT'L YACHT: Denial of YATCO's Arbitration Bid in Ya Mon Affirmed INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Gene Therapy Fraud Suit INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Overton Alleges JADE NUTRITION: James Sues Over Automatic Paid Subscription Renewal JMJ FINANCIAL: Bradford Sues Over Denied Credit Application JONES & CO: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal JUSTFAB LLC: Williams Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection KEURIG GREEN: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Marketing Emails KG MINING: All Case Deadlines in Loehr Stayed Until Oct. 9 KIA AMERICA: Faces Brenman Class Action Suit in C.D. Cal. KIDS FIRST: Mack Sues Over Illegal Procurement of Consumer Reports KNOWBE4 INC: Seeks Judgment on the Pleadings in Securities Suit LETAVIS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ping Alleges LEVI STRAUSS: Faces Iglesias Suit Over Tariff-Related Overcharges LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ward Wins Bid to Certify Class LIMETREE BAY: Boynes Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification LIMETREE BAY: Boynes Seeks to Temporarily File Memo Under Seal LITHIA MOTORS: Avagian Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code LOKUM & TERRACOTTA: Kaba Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL LTF CLUB: Class Settlement in Turner Suit Gets Final Nod MAERSK LOGISTICS: Mendiola Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. MANEUVER MARKETING: Court Dismisses Mislabeling Class Action Suit MARCO RUBIO: Standing Order Entered in Perlmutter Class Suit MARKWAYNE MULLLIN: Blanche Dismissed w/o Prejudice as Attorney MASTEC INC: Faces Reed Suit Over Breach of Clients' Personal Data MATHESON TRI-GAS: Fernandez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MDL 3009: 7th Cir. Affirms Denial of Fee Allocation Challenge MEAD JOHNSON: Seeks to Stay Garland Class Action MINDVALLEY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unwanted Subscriptions NANO-X IMAGING: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Steele Claims NARA ORGANICS: Zetterstrom Sues Over Contaminated Infant Product NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Messages NATIONAL LUTHERAN: Court OKs $289K Settlement in "Chittum" NATIONAL PRESTO: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge NCB MGMT: Arbitration Judgment Against Wallace Affirmed on Appeal NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT: De Leon Seeks Wage Penalties Under PAGA NEW YORK: Class Certification Denial Upheld in Alli NYCHRL Case PANDA RESTAURANT: Greer Suit Removed from Cal. Super. to C.D. Cal. PATRIOT CLAIMS: Underpays Fulfillment Specialists, McCormick Says PEPSICO INC: Kononenko Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. PNC FINANCIAL: Keturah Suit Removed from State Ct. to M.D. Fla. PRESTIGE TIME: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Senior Says PUMA UNITED: Lemense Suit Seeks Refund of Unlawful Tariffs QUEST NUTRITION: Ballard Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. REBUILT BROKERAGE: Girifalco Sues Over Unwanted Pre-Recorded Calls REMEDY MEDS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Murphy Alleges REVLON CONSUMER: Mitchum Contains Fragrance, Khangi Suit Alleges ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Scheme ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sells Unregulated Sports Contracts, Mazza Says ROEHL TRANSPORT: Brief in Opposition to Class Cert Due Sept. 15 RUSSELL CELLULAR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 1, 2027 SAM'S EAST: Discovery Order Entered in Johnson Class Action SECURITAS SECURITY: Modification of Briefing Schedule Sought SIETE BUCKS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Tequila Brand SKINHEALTH SYSTEMS: Settlement in Alghazwi Suit for Court OK SNAP INC: Bride Appeals Third Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit SODEXO INC: Faces Malone Suit Over ERISA Violations SOUTH32 HERMOSA: Goodnough Seeks Unpaid & OT Wages Under AWA, FLSA STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Oakley Class Suit in E.D. Va. STRIDES PHARMA: Settles Testosterone Gel Class Suit for $750,000 SUNRUN INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Stone Suit Says SYNGENTA CROP: Lemmings Sues Over Toxic Paraquat Herbicide TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howington Due Dec. 1 TAQUERIA EL: Faces Toj Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. TARGET CORP: Wipe Products Contain Burkholderia, Murgolo Alleges TERRAVEST INDUSTRIES: SMK Law Investigates Possible Investors' Suit TESLA INC: Molina Contamination Suit Removed to S.D. Tex. TEXAS CAPITAL: Faces Ahmadinia Class Suit in N.D. Tex. TEXOLLINI INC: Cota Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TIKTOK INC: Mortazi Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Personal Info TOTAL RENAL: McCracken Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. TRULIANT FEDERAL: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages TULANE UNIVERSITY: Ritzman Sues Over Data Breach ULTA BEAUTY: Moran Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts UNITED EDUCATORS: Denial of Hofstra Dismissal Affirmed on Appeal UNITED PARCEL: Arbitration Order in Orr Vacated on Mandamus UNITED STATES: Combined Joint Status Report Due August 11 UNITED STATES: Rodgers Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification VALVOLINE LLC: Curtin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington VIRTA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Morgan Says WALGREENS BOOTS: Klein Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir. WALT DISNEY: $50MM Deal in Streaming Suit Final Hearing Set Jan. 14 WALT DISNEY: YouTube TV Subscribers Eligible in Antitrust Suit Deal WESTERN UNION: Forfeits $586MM as Part of Fraud Class Settlement WYSSTA SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Data Tracking Suit for $12.67MM XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Pesonal, Health Info, Mathews Alleges ZARA USA: Trocchio Suit Seeks Refund of Unlawful Tariffs ********* 1023 MONTEREY: Case Management Order Entered in Coronitas Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coronitas Holdings, LLC. et al., v. 1023 Monterey Investors, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-11946-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered a scheduling and case management order as follows: Trial (jury): July 27, 2027 Hearing on motions in limine; July 16, 2027 Hearing on disputed jury instructions: Pre-trial conference (file proposed June 25, 2027 Voir Dire Qs and Agreed-to Statement of Case three days prior to PTC): Last day for hearing motions: Mar. 29, 2027 Discovery cut-off: Mar. 1, 2027 Last day to conduct settlement Dec. 13, 2026 conference/mediation: Monterey Investors is a California-based real estate entity involved in the development and ownership of commercial properties. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0XIGFm at no extra charge.[CC] 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ardi Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW ARDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1LIFE HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a ONE MEDICAL, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06189 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information, including demographic information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant maintained the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members in a negligent and/or reckless manner. In particular, the private information was maintained on One Medical's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the private information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the suit. 1Life Healthcare, Inc., doing business as One Medical, provides healthcare software solutions. The Company offers membership-based and technology-powered primary care platform which delivers medical services in-office and virtually, as well as administrative and managerial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Askins Says ----------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA ASKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1LIFE HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a ONE MEDICAL, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06166 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for injuries arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class members from unauthorized access to its information systems in or around June 2026 and the compromise and unauthorized disclosure of that private information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's failure to safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive private information violates its common law duty, industry standards, consumer expectations, California law, California public policy, and Defendant's implied contract with Plaintiff and Class members to safeguard their private information. The Defendant could have prevented this Data Breach by implementing reasonable, expected, and industry standard data security measures. Instead, Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement these measures to safeguard its current and former clients' customers' private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, says the suit. 1Life Healthcare, Inc., doing business as One Medical, provides healthcare software solutions. The Company offers membership-based and technology-powered primary care platform which delivers medical services in-office and virtually, as well as administrative and managerial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com 3M COMPANY: MayBrook Fire PFAS Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MAYBROOK FIRE DISTRICT, NY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendant, Case No. EF005888-2026, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:26-cv-05016 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is a fire district that seeks to hold 3M liable based on its alleged conduct in designing, marketing, developing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, and supplying per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluoro-octanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and PFAS-containing products. The Plaintiff alleges that 3M manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold PFAS infused turnout gear and PFAS chemical products and that 3M also sold PFAS chemical products to performance material manufacturers and to turnout gear manufacturers. The Plaintiff contends that 3M failed to disclose purported risks associated with PFAS. 3M Company is a global science and manufacturing conglomerate headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joanna Wright, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 891-1600 E-mail: jwright@jenner.com ABACO POLARIZED: Simmons Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ RANDOLPH SIMMONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABACO POLARIZED, d/b/a OKANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05001 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its websites to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's websites, www.abacopolarized.com and www.okanaeyewear.com contain access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the websites. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Abaco Polarized, doing business as Okana, LLC, is a company that offers a range of polarized sunglasses and related eyewear based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ABBOTT LAB: Munruddin Bid to Compel Further Responses OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANSOOR MUNRUDDIN, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 2:21-cv-00672-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claire entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents is granted. 2. The Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to the Interrogatories is: a. Granted as to Int. No. 10; and b. Granted in part and denied in part as to Int. Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8. The Defendant shall answer as to putative class members who were employed at the Fairfield facility. The Defendant need not answer at this time as to employees at other California worksites; however, the plaintiff may renew the interrogatories as to employees at other California worksites if a factual basis for such discovery is identified. Such renewed interrogatories will not count against any applicable limit on the total number of interrogatories. 3. The Defendant shall produce responsive documents and information within 21 days of this order. The motion to compel is granted in full as to the RFPs and Interrogatory No. 10. The court rejects the defendant's argument that its general denial that the subject policies exist precludes the existence of responsive documents or otherwise fulfills the defendant's duty to respond. The Plaintiff Mansoor Munruddin was an employee of Abbott Laboratories at its Fairfield location from October 2015 to January 2020. The complaint in this action, filed on Feb. 19, 2021, asserts various wage and hour claims on behalf of several proposed subclasses. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BpWXrZ at no extra charge.[CC] ABM AVIATION: Appeals Arbitration Order in Kelly Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABM AVIATION, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Donyell Kelly, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABM Aviation, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01255-HDV-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which 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, is brought against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On Mar. 10, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Hernan D. Vera denied on May 18, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Kelly v. ABM Aviation, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3760, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 21, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DONYELL KELLY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Tara Zabehi, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 450 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Defendants-Appellants ABM AVIATION, INC., et al. are represented by: Jeffrey Kenneth Brown, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 - and - Matthew C. Lewis, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS, LLP 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1430 San Francisco, CA 94111 ADMA BIOLOGICS: Mazzarino Sues Over Decline of Stock Price ---------------------------------------------------------- LISA MAZZARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMA BIOLOGICS, INC., ADAM S. GROSSMAN, JERROLD V. GROSSMAN, and BRAD TADE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06918 (D.N.J., June 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding ADMA Biologics' business, operations, and prospects in order to trade ADMA Biologics securities at artificially inflated prices between August 9, 2024 and March 25, 2026. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ADMA Biologics engaged in an undisclosed related party transaction; (2) ADMA Biologics used channel stuffing to create an appearance of revenue; (3) ADMA Biologics lacked adequate internal controls; (4) as a result, the Defendants' statements about ADMA Biologics' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of ADMA Biologics stock fell $1.34 per share, or 13.9 percent, to close at $8.29 on March 26, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. ADMA Biologics, Inc. is a commercial biopharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com AEROVIRONMENT INC: Settlement Deal Reached Labor Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- AeroVironment Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Jan. 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2026, that both parties in the California labor class suit have reached a settlement agreement to settle the dispute. On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against the Company in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. The Company filed its answer on December 16, 2021. On June 11, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the class action complaint and the related PAGA complaint pursuant to a mediator's proposal made on such date by the mediator from a May 8, 2025 mediation session held for the class action litigation. A court must approve the terms of the settlement before the Company will pay any amounts pursuant to the settlement. The parties executed a non-binding memorandum of understanding outlining the material terms of a proposed settlement agreement and are working on a written settlement agreement consistent with the memorandum of understanding to present to the court for approval. The estimated settlement was accrued in the Company's consolidated statements of income (loss) for the year ended April 30, 2025. AeroVironment Inc. is a technology company that designs, develops and produces unmanned aircraft systems and related solutions for government and commercial customers. The company focuses on advanced robotics, sensors and connectivity technologies used for defense, intelligence, surveillance and industrial applications. ALTIUS INSPIRO: Walters FLSA Collective Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINE WALTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALTIUS INSPIRO U.S., INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00482-DKG (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Grasham entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for Court authorized notice as follows: 1) The proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective is conditionally certified and defined as: "All current and former hourly Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) who worked for the Defendant at any time in the past three years." 2) The Plaintiff Sabrine Walters' attorneys are appointed as counsel for the FLSA collective. 3) On or before July 10, 2026, the parties must meet and confer regarding the content, form, and method of the notice and the plan for distribution of the notice consistent with this Order, and must submit a joint proposed notice for the Court's review and approval. The Court finds the proposed notice and attached forms contain superfluous verbiage that is unnecessary to ensure potential collective members are given timely, accurate, and informative notice of the collective action. On Feb. 2, 2026, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for Court authorized notice of the collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff, Sabrine Walters, worked for Defendant Altius Inspiro, U.S., Inc. (Inspiro), as a customer service representative (CSR), providing call-in customer service as a remote Global Expert from September 2021 to January 2024. Altius is engaged in digital customer experience management and business process outsourcing. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2utiRx at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to File Surreply Brief in Antitrust Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gorenstein entered an order granting the request to file a surreply brief to the following extent: defendant may file a surreply brief of no more than 3000 words (excluding the elements mentioned in the third paragraph of Local Civil Rule 7.1(c)) but only to address arguments purportedly made for the first time in plaintiffs' reply brief and that defendant clearly identifies as such. The Plaintiffs may file a responsive brief of the same length. The Defendant may file new affidavits or other supporting materials only to the extent that they support a specific response to purported new arguments in the reply brief. The parties are reminded that they are not permitted to "incorporat[e]" documents by reference into their briefs. Because of the imminent departure of a law clerk who is working on this matter, any surreply must be filed by June 23, 2026. Any response from the plaintiffs must be filed by July 1, 2026. Finally, oral argument on the pending motion for class certification will take place via video on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. The public may attend by dialing 646-453-4442 and using access code 185 226 639. The Court will record the proceeding for purposes of transcription in the event a transcript is ordered. However, any other recording or dissemination of the proceeding in any form is forbidden. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology and e-commerce company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NICjfl at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Cross Due March 15, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cross, et al., v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02099 (D. Colo., Filed Aug. 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Nina Y. Wang entered an amended Scheduling Order as follows: Deadline for Service of Written Discovery: September 14, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-off: November 2, 2026 Affirmative Expert Disclosures: December 7, 2026 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: January 11, 2027 Motion for Class Certification: March 15, 2027 Per the agreement of the parties, Defendants shall have 28 days to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs shall file their reply (if any) within 21 days of Defendants' response. A Status Conference in this matter is set for November 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert. Daubert Briefing Sealing Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order regarding sealing of class certification Daubert briefing as follows: -- Any additional class certification papers, ancillary filings, or Daubert briefing related to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed provisionally under seal. -- The deadline for filing (1) public versions of the parties' briefing, with necessary redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3) shall be four weeks following the completion of class certification briefing, inclusive of any briefing on ancillary motions including Daubert motions. -- Any declarations and accompanying exhibits to those briefs, including expert reports, shall continue to remain under seal. On Feb. 24, 2025, the Court granted the parties' motion stipulating and agreeing to a procedure for filing and sealing in connection with the class certification briefing. That stipulation and order did not expressly cover ancillary filings, such as Daubert motions, in connection with class certification briefing Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iVQRIi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Alicia Cobb, Esq. Matthew Hosen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com emilyparsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. Melissa F. Zappala, Esq. Yotam Barkai, Esq. DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP 401 Ninth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-2637 Telephone: (202) 240-2900 E-mail: kdunn@dirllp.com wisaacson@dirllp.com amauser@dirllp.com ksmith@dirllp.com mzappala@dirllp.com mdearborn@dirllp.com ybarkai@dirllp.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 12, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AADIT RAI, as an individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-01905-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order granting the joint stipulation to modify order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pre-trial deadlines as follows: Event Date Reports of expert witnesses under Oct. 16, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: All motions related to class certification Dec. 10, 2026 discovery must be filed by this date and noted for consideration (pursuant to LCR7(d)): Class certification discovery to be Jan. 8, 2027 completed by: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Motion Feb. 12, 2027 for Class Certification and Report of Class Certification Expert: Deadline for Defendant to file Opposition Mar. 22, 2027 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Reply Apr. 5, 2027 re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prWvgc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie B. Rogers, Esq. Hali M. Anderson, Esq. ARCH LEGAL, P.C. 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-0800 Facsimile: (619) 692-0822 - and - Jordan Taren, Esq. TAREN LAW GROUP PLLC 705 2nd Ave UNIT 1500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-1604 The Defendants are represented by: Melissa K. Mordy, Esq. Sheehan Sullivan, Esq. Rebecca Lynch, Esq. Sarah Gunderson, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004-4786 E-mail: missymordy@dwt.com sulls@dwt.com rebeccalynch@dwt.com sarahgunderson@dwt.com dominikmackinnon@dwt.com carolhuerta@dwt.com gretanelson@dwt.com susanbright@dwt.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rai Due Feb. 12, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AADIT RAI, as an individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-01905-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pre-trial deadlines as follows: Event Schedule Reports of expert witnesses under FRCP Oct. 16, 2026 26(a)(2) due: All motions related to class certification Dec. 10, 2026 discovery must be filed by this date and noted for consideration (pursuant to LCR7(d)): Class certification discovery to be Jan. 8, 2027 completed by: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Feb. 12, 2027 motion for class certification and report of class certification expert: Deadline for the Defendant to file Mar. 22, 2027 opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Apr. 5, 2027 reply re: Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Good cause exists to continue the expert disclosure deadlines by roughly 120 days to permit completion of discovery necessary to make said disclosures. The remaining deadlines to (i) submit motions related to class certification discovery, (ii) complete class certification discovery, and (iii) brief the class certification motion should be continued accordingly to accommodate the revised expert disclosure deadlines and any additional class certification discovery and motion practice thereafter. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kww5Ik at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hali M. Anderson, Esq. Carrie B. Rogers, Esq. ARCH LEGAL, P.C. 3555 Fifth Ave Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-0800 Facsimile: (619) 692-0822 - and - Jordan Taren, Esq. TAREN LAW GROUP PLLC 705 2nd Ave UNIT 1500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-1604 The Defendants are represented by: Melissa K. Mordy, Esq. Sheehan Sullivan, Esq. Rebecca Lynch, Esq. Sarah Gunderson, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004-4786 E-mail: missymordy@dwt.com sulls@dwt.com rebeccalynch@dwt.com sarahgunderson@dwt.com dominikmackinnon@dwt.com carolhuerta@dwt.com gretanelson@dwt.com susanbright@dwt.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Vincenzetti Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------------- 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 certifying the following Classes: COVID Class: "All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon who underwent a COVID screening during at least one week in Colardo in the three-year period before Oct. 1, 2021 to the present." Exit Screening Class: "All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon who underwent a secondary screening during at least one week in Colorado in the three-year period before Oct. 1, 2021 to the present." Class certification is appropriate because this case involves a company policy requiring all hourly employees to perform the same work each shift without pay, the the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit seeking compensation for the time spent off-the-clock as a result of Amazon's company-wide policy requiring each of its employees to pass a COVID screening in order to work for the day and policy requiring hourly employees at Amazon fulfillment centers complete secondary security screenings without pay. 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=1JiRCu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.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 AMAZON.COM: Dismissal of IMWL Overtime Claim in Johnson Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LISA JOHNSON and GALE MILLER ANDERSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-1028 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claim under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). Plaintiffs Johnson and Anderson worked for Amazon as hourly warehouse employees—moving, stacking, and loading packages—during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, on behalf of a putative class, they seek overtime wages under the IMWL for time spent undergoing unpaid, mandatory pre-shift COVID19 screenings. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Amazon required warehouse employees to complete a 10- to 15-minute COVID-19 health screening before clocking in for their shifts. Because employees were not permitted to clock in until after the screenings, they were not paid for that time, resulting in up to one hour of uncompensated overtime per week. In 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action on behalf of Amazon warehouse employees who were not paid for time spent completing mandatory COVID-19 screenings. Among their claims, they alleged that Amazon violated the IMWL by failing to pay overtime wages for work exceeding 40 hours per week. Amazon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the IMWL incorporates the federal Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. Section 254(a)(2) ("PPA"), which excludes employers from paying employees for activities performed before they begin their principal work duties, including preliminary activities such as the required COVID-19 screenings. The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' IMWL claim, concluding that the pre-shift COVID-19 screenings were noncompensable preliminary activities under the PPA. On appeal, the Plaintiffs asked the Seventh Circuit to certify to the Illinois Supreme Court whether the IMWL incorporates the PPA's preliminary-activities exclusion. The Seventh Circuit certified the question, and the Illinois Supreme Court answered no, holding that the IMWL does not incorporate that exclusion. Specifically, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the IMWL does not incorporate the PPA exclusion for preliminary and postliminary activities. It found no reference to the PPA in the IMWL and noted that the Illinois Department of Labor ("IDOL")'s regulations define "hours worked" to include all time employees are required to remain on their employer's premises. Based on the statute and regulations, the court concluded that "hours worked" under the IMWL includes preliminary activities such as the required COVID-19 screenings. On appeal, Amazon asked the Seventh Circuit to remand the case so the district court could consider an alternative ground for dismissal: that the mandatory COVID-19 screenings were not compensable work under the IMWL because they were not performed primarily for Amazon's benefit. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of "work" under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") in Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, Amazon argued that the screenings were not activities undertaken primarily for its business and therefore were not compensable. he Seventh Circuit rejected Amazon's request to remand the case for consideration of its alternative argument that the COVID-19 screenings were not compensable because they were not performed primarily for Amazon's benefit. It explained that, once the Illinois Supreme Court held that the IMWL does not incorporate the PPA, the Plaintiffs' claim was governed by the text of the IMWL and the IDOL's regulations. It also rejected Amazon's argument that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was too narrow to foreclose reliance on the "benefit of the employer" test, noting that the state court had examined the IMWL and its implementing regulations as a whole. The Seventh Circuit opined that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision indicates the IMWL does not incorporate the "benefit of the employer" test from Tennessee Coal. It noted that neither the IMWL nor the relevant IDOL regulations mention that test, that the regulations apply it only in specific contexts, that they expressly reference federal law elsewhere when intended, and that the IDOL chose not to adopt the test in defining "hours worked." In sum, the Seventh Circuit held that neither the text of the IMWL nor the IDOL's regulations incorporate the "benefit of the employer" test, and declined to read that requirement into the statute. It therefore reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion and the Illinois Supreme Court's decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/8fR5BNVjc AMBER SUNDQUIST: White Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel David White, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. Amber Sundquist, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00543-MO (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gJeONC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Winchester Due August 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMSON WINCHESTER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-03040-PA-DMK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule. The Court adopts the following class certification briefing and hearing schedule: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification filing deadline: Aug. 4, 2026 -- The Defendant's opposition to class certification filing deadline: Aug. 25, 2026 -- The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification filing deadline: Sept. 8, 2026 American Airlines provides scheduled airline transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JavemB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 323-1684 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAW FIRM 1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 922-1802 Facsimile: (510) 844-7701 E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Kelly S. Wood, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 E-mail: kwood@omm.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails -------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE CASTRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., a Wisconsin entity, d/b/a AMFAM. Case No. 8:26-cv-01453-MRA-ADS (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. According to the complaint, the e-mail received by Plaintiff appears to be official government communication regarding "Senior Discounts" that are only available to senior citizens. The e-mail instructs recipients to visit what purports to be an official U.S. government website, seniordiscounts.live so that they can "continue to enjoy your retirement and live your life without any extra cost." That website then contains a link to AMFAM.COM, where the Defendant secretly installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on every visitor's device. Those tracking technologies enable the Defendant and its partners to follow visitors' behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance, the suit contends. The Plaintiff has received countless misleading spam e-mail advertising AMFAM.COM, After receiving the spam and being deceived into clicking on the embedded link, he visited the Defendant's website. The Defendant operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com AMERICAN GOLF: Dimofski Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Golf Corporation. The case is styled as Tom Dimofski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Golf Corporation, Case No. 26STCV19078 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." American Golf Corporation -- https://www.americangolf.com/ -- is the world's largest golf course management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP 100 Oceangate, Ste. 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802-4324 Phone: 562-733-2498 Fax: 562-628-5501 Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com AMERICAN HONDA: Fausto Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER FAUSTO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Jennifer Fausto, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00142, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this action for breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. On Nov. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Dec. 2, 2024. On May 14, 2026, Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice for mootness. The appellate case is styled as Jennifer Fausto, et al. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 26-3527, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JENNIFER FAUSTO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Subodh Chandra, Esq. THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM 1265 W. Sixth Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 578-1700 - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. is represented by: Martha Brewer Motley, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE 52 E. Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 464-6400 AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 8, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY FRY, et. al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01782-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline Mehalchick entered an order that: 1. The following dates and deadlines shall govern the discovery and dispositive motions phase of the above-captioned civil action: Amendment of pleadings and joinder of Parties: Dec. 8, 2026 Fact discovery: June 8, 2027 The Plaintiff's expert reports: Sept. 8, 2027 Motion for class certification: Sept. 8, 2027 The Defendant's expert reports: Dec. 8, 2027 2. On or before the close of fact discovery, the parties shall meet and confer and advise the Court by letter docketed in this case as to whether they wish to have a settlement conference or mediation scheduled in this matter, along with the parties' preference for assignment of a magistrate judge or court mediator to conduct the settlement conference or mediation. The Defendant develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zhou9f at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN USED AUTO: Partial Bid to Dismiss De Souza Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUTTEMBERG DIAS DE SOUZA, LINDOMBERG DIAS DE SOUZA, MELVA MENDEZ, FRANK CRUZ, MATHEWS CARDEAL, and SANTIAGO TEJEDA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN USED AUTO PARTS, INC., NEW AMERICAN USED AUTO PARTS, INC., D&B AUTO BODY COLLISION, INC., ALEX ROSA, an individual, and WENDY DIAZ, an individual, Case No. 4:25-cv-40077-MRG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Guzman entered an order denying the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs properly asserted their claims under putative class and collective action theories for their six pending claims, even though the Plaintiffs once more fail to address specific sub-classes under these claims. Based on the pleadings, the Court infers that Plaintiffs bring their FLSA overtime claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and state claims as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Court finds, after accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inference in the Plaintiffs' favor, they have sufficiently alleged facts to support that the Defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"). The Plaintiffs may pursue discovery on this claim. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay legally required minimum and overtime wages, engaged in unlawful deductions, retaliation, discrimination, and trafficking-related exploitation. In March 2026, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' initial partial motion to dismiss, dismissing the Plaintiffs' TVPRA claim without prejudice and granting 30 days' leave to amend the complaint as to the TVPRA and class claims only. American Used is a salvage and auto recycling facility. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fMFzZx at no extra charge.[CC] APEX ADVISING LLC: Brownlee Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gayle Brownlee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. APEX ADVISING LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV172357 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-05866. The Complaint, styled as a class action, purports to bring five causes of action, for: violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); violation of the federal Wiretap Act, as amended by Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); invasion of privacy in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter J. Farnese, Esq. FARNESE P.C. 2555 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 310-356-4668 Facsimile: 310-388-1232 Email: pjf@farneselaw.com APOGEE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to AbbVie Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Apogee Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: APGE) related to its sale to AbbVie Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Apogee shareholders are expected to receive $135.11 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/apogee-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] APPLE INC: Faces Antitrust Suit in UK, $4-Bil. Payout at Stake -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Lovejoy of 9to5MAC reports that a class action lawsuit accusing Apple of forcing iPhone owners to use iCloud could see British users share a GBP3B ($4B) payout if the case is won. A consumer organization sought permission from a competition regulator to pursue the antitrust lawsuit and has now been given the go-ahead . . . The lawsuit dates back to November 2024. -- UK consumer rights group Which? is leading a lawsuit against Apple, targeting Apple's dominance over cloud services on iPhone and iPad. Essentially, it argues that Apple forces iOS device users to buy iCloud storage as it does not allow other cloud services to integrate deeply with the system for data backup [ . . .] Which? argues that Apple is abusing its position in the market with unlawful conduct, effectively tying iCloud subscriptions to iPhone and iPad usage. iCloud is presented to iPhone owners as the only way to back up their device to a cloud service. It's also the default cloud storage for many Apple apps. The lawsuit argues that this amounts to an effective monopoly, and means Apple can charge uncompetitive fees for iCloud storage. The first step in the claim was to file details with the Competition Appeal Tribunal. BBC News reports that the CAT has now given the go-ahead for the lawsuit to proceed. Anabel Hoult, Which?'s chief executive, said the group wanted to make clear that no company "no matter how powerful, can get away with abusing its position". She added the green light from the Competition Appeal Tribunal meant Which? was "one step closer to getting consumers the redress we believe they are owed from Apple". Are you included in the class action? Some class action lawsuits require eligible consumers to opt in while others automatically include you unless you opt out. This is one of the latter, so you do not need to do anything if you meet the following criteria: -- You used iCloud between 8 November 2018 and 8 June 2026 -- You were living in the UK on 8 June 2026 Those who are not resident in the UK on June 8th, 2026 will need to opt in here. How much is being claimed? The total lawsuit is for GBP3B ($3.96B) and approximately 40 million iCloud customers would be entitled to a share. This works out at roughly GBP77 ($102) each. It's important to note that the sums given are just what is being claimed on behalf of eligible users. The lawsuit may be won or lost, and any judgment may be for a smaller or larger sum. Apple has previously said that it will "vigorously defend" the case. Apple believes in providing our customers with choices. Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible -- whether its to iCloud or another service. We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anticompetitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise." The case is unlikely to go to court until late in 2028, so it will be quite some time before we know the outcome. [GN] ARAMARK SERVICES: Settlement in Kelly Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE KELLY, v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-01272-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order granting final approval of the Settlement. The Court orders as follows: -- The Court confirms certification, for settlement purposes only, of the Settlement Class comprised of: "all persons employed by the Defendants in the Refreshments line of business in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the Class Settlement Period, other than those persons whose hours were regulated by (1) the United States Department of Transportation Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Sections 395.1 to 395.13; and /or (2) Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, subchapter 6.5, Section 1200." The Class Period is March 1, 2018, through and including Feb. 10, 2024. The Court finds that Setareh Law Group's ("Class Counsel") request for $23,750.00 in attorney fees, an amount equal to 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount of $95,000, and costs in the amount of $5,000, is fair, adequate, and reasonable after a 10% reduction in the requested fee amount. Accordingly, the Court orders a reduced amount of fees in the amount of $21,375, and the full amount of expenses $5,000, to be paid to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The Court further finds that the fees and expenses in administrating the Settlement, in an amount up to $4,950, are fair and reasonable. The Court orders that amount be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. Aramark is an American food service and facilities services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fAdjng at no extra charge.[CC] ARCOSA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to CRH Americas ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 Arcosa, Inc. (NYSE: ACA) related to its sale to CRH Americas, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Arcosa shareholders are expected to receive $150.00 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arcosa-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Starkes Sues Over Unsecured Private Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- SIRENA STARKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03511-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information that was entrusted to AssuranceAmerica. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, AssuranceAmerica failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by AssuranceAmerica's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, particularly given the exposure of Social Security numbers. Assuranceamerica Managing General Agency, LLC is a U.S. insurance wholesale and management provider. Operating under the broader AssuranceAmerica enterprise, it specializes in underwriting, policy administration, and risk management for auto, renters, and commercial insurance lines. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 10 Glenlake Parkway South Tower Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Email: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com -and- Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com ASURION INSURANCE: Wood Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Joaquina Wood, Jonah Toubeaux, and Sukhchain Kumar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV18810 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' Failure to Pay State Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Indemnify for All Necessary Expenditures and Losses; Unlawful Imposition of Forum-Selection Provisions. Asurion violated Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198, as well as the overtime provisions of IWC Wage Order Nos. 7-2001 and 4-2001, by failing to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members the required overtime and double-time premiums for all hours triggering such compensation under the foregoing provisions. By engaging in the unlawful wage and hour practices, including, but not limited to, failing to record and compensate all hours worked and failing to properly calculate overtime wages, Asurion violated Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198 and the overtime provisions of IWC Wage Order Nos. 7-2001 and 4-2001, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current employees of Asurion. Asurion is a Tennessee-headquartered company that provides phone insurance, device-protection, and in-home technology services to consumers in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. STONEBROOK LAW 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 553-5533 Email jft@stonebrooklaw.com AUSTRALIA: Court Approves Robodebt Suit Settlement Up to $548.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lucinda Garbutt-Young of nine.com.au reports that more than 450,000 people who were affected by the federal government's unlawful debt collection method will receive $475 million in compensation between them. The Robodebt system was designed to fix overpayment of social security benefits, but it resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being wrongly accused of owing the government money between 2015 and 2019. Some of Australia's most vulnerable people entered into extreme debt, went without food or even died by suicide as a result. The bungled program has cost the government more than $2.4 billion following multiple class actions. Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach ruled that an additional settlement of $548.5 million, including the approved compensation figure, was fair and reasonable. It also includes up to $13.5 million in legal costs, to be paid by the Commonwealth. Class action representatives will be paid between $20,000 and $25,000 each for "inconvenience occurred over a number of years". The settlement comes on top of an earlier $112 million agreement that lawyers successfully appealed. Justice Beach thanked victims who had been part of various class actions since 2019, particularly Jenny Miller and Kath Madgwick. They lost their sons, Rhys Cauzzo and Jarrad Madgwick, to suicide after they were issued with robodebt notices. "I did appreciate hearing their perspectives and the fortitude that has been shown particularly from the two mothers whose sons were lost," the judge said. He added the "fiasco" was an opportunity to learn lessons, chastising government officials who were 'insulated and detached" from the consequences of their actions. A settlement was first reached in 2021, but it did not consider information later uncovered in the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. That included the revelation that government officials tried to mislead investigations into the scandal. Further compensation was then requested in the successful appeal by law firm Gordon Legal, which led the class action. The class action was launched by Sydney woman Katherine Prygodicz, who had twice been chased for a debt of more than $14,000. [GN] AUTOBAY LLC: Sued Over Improper Denial of Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN J. RUEGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOBAY LLC; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; CHOICE AUTO PROTECTION, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-07497 (D.N.J., June 23, 2026) alleges violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, the Retain Installment Sales Act, and Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants fraudulently sold to the Plaintiff a warranty for used motor vehicle. The Plaintiff and substantially financially damaged when the Subject Vehicle had catastrophic engine failure while Plaintiff was operating it, and CAP disclaimed coverage for the warranty that Plaintiff not only paid for, but CAP accepted, says the suit. Autobay LLC is a family-owned, luxury, and specialty used car dealership located on Route 130 in Burlington, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. WHITEFORD TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 Email: jjones@whitefordlaw.com bwolf@whitefordlaw.com AXALTA COATING: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Akzo Nobel ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde, of Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. (NYSE: AXTA) related to its sale to Akzo Nobel N.V. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Axalta shareholders will receive 0.6539 shares of AkzoNobel stock for each share of Axalta common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/axalta-coating-systems-ltd/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Katapult Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: KPLT) related to its merger with The Aaron’s Company, Inc. and CCF Holdings LLC. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/katapult-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Calisa Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: ALIS) related to its merger with Goodvision AI Inc. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/calisa-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (NASDAQ: CZR) related to its sale to Fertitta Gaming Holdco, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Caesars shareholders are expected to receive (i) $31.00 per share in cash and (ii) a ticking consideration of $0.007150 multiplied by the number of calendar days elapsed after June 27, 2027. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/caesars-entertainment-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] BAYOU TITLE: Johnson Suit Removed from State Court to E.D. La. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE HUNGER JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly similarly situated v. BAYOU TITLE, INC., Case No. 875-655 (Filed May 8, 2026), was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on June 18, 2026. The Eastern District of Louisiana Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01313-BSL-JVM to the proceeding. In the Petition, the Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 29, 2026, ransomware group Aurora publicly claimed responsibility for a cyberattack against Defendant, which resulted in the breach of various forms of customer and employee information, including but not limited to Social Security numbers paired with names, addresses, and sale proceeds; bank account numbers, routing numbers, pay rates, tax withholding, and direct deposit details for current and former employees; ownership chains, liens, and mortgages for properties across Louisiana; HUD-1 settlement statements, identity verification documents, Social Security number cards, and tax records; and Attorney-client privileged documents including wills, attorney engagement letters, and legal opinions (Data Breach). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to implement reasonable data security measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to provide any notice regarding the Data Breach to affected individuals. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative nationwide class consisting of "all persons whose Private Information was maintained by Bayou and was compromised in the Data Breach." The Plaintiff further asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied contract, and (3) violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of herself and the putative class actual damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, nominal damages, attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Defendant is a title insurance corporation organized under Louisiana law with its registered office located in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq. Taylor P. Smith, Esq. ADAMS & REESE, LLP 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 581-3234 Facsimile: (504) 566-0210 E-Mail: gerard.gaudet@arlaw.com taylor.smith@arlaw.com BEENA BEAUTY HOLDING: Weakley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beena Beauty Holding, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brianne Weakley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Beena Beauty Holding, Inc., Planet Beauty, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE068199 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Beena Beauty Holding, Inc is a company based in Dana Point, California, specializing in the beauty industry.[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 BELL PARTNERS: Wilson Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE D. WILSON, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christina A. Wilson, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BELL PARTNERS, INC. and BEL STOUGHTON, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11789-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification, and appointing her as class representative for the putative class and sub-class. The Plaintiff further moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) that her undersigned attorneys be appointed class counsel. Bell Partners operates as a real estate management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SEV8SX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 373 Winch Street Framingham MA 01701 Telephone: (508) 872-1261 E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com - and - John R. Yasi, Esq. YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green Salem MA 01970 Telephone: (617) 741-0400 E-mail: John.yasi@yasiandyasi.com BETTER RISE CAPITAL: Charles Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Rise Capital LLC. The case is styled as David Charle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Better Rise Capital LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01525 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Better Rise Capital LLC -- https://betterrisecapital.com/ -- is a US-based direct lender specializing in commercial financing, working capital, and equipment financing for small and medium-sized businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com BEUSA ENERGY LLC: Boussenane Files Suit in Tex. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beusa Energy, LLC. The case is styled as Issam Boussenane and Paul Priester, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Beusa Energy, LLC, Case No. 26-06-10334 (Tex. Ct., Montgomery Cty., June 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil - Over $325,000." Beusa Energy, LLC -- https://beusaenergy.com/ -- offer competitive compensation, a distinctive premium health insurance plan, and a 401k program with company matching.[BN] BIG Y FOODS: Breaches Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA, Akey Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ROSS AKEY, TRACY HESS, JADA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of the BIG Y FOODS, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiffs v. BIG Y FOODS, INC.; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Case No. 3:26-cv-30098 (D. Mass., June 24, 2026) seeks to remedy the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, defined contribution plans that are qualified as tax-deferred vehicles have become the primary form of retirement savings in the United States and, as a result, America's de facto retirement system. Unlike traditional defined benefit retirement plans, in which the employer typically promises a calculable benefit and assumes the risk with respect to high fees or underperformance of pension plan assets used to fund defined benefits, defined contribution plans operate in a manner by which participants bear the risk of high fees and investment underperformance. As fiduciaries to the Plan, at all times relevant to this Complaint Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. The Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for more than eight years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. The Plaintiffs by virtue of Plaintiffs' former employment with the Company and participation in the Plan, are or may become eligible to receive additional benefits under the Plan as a result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and ERISA violations. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, and in particular Defendants' inclusion of the American Century One Choice target date fund series, Plaintiffs were subject to underperformance and suffered financial losses, the Plaintiff contends. Big Y is an American, family-owned supermarket chain located in Massachusetts and Connecticut. It operates under the trade names Big Y World Class Market or Big Y Supermarket.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com arudenco@milberg.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Pearson-Martinez Sues Over Deceptive Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corinne Pearson-Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-03576-JES-SBC (S.D. Cal., June 16, 2026), is brought against the Defendant seeking redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and sale of its Oroweat Breads ("Products") which claim to be "free from artificial preservatives" in breach of warranty, violates California's Business and Professions Codes. Unfortunately, the claim that its Products are free from artificial preservatives is false and misleading, as they each contain a material amount of an artificial preservative in the form of citric acid. Despite unequivocally and boldly claiming that its Products are "FREE FROM ARTIFICIAL PRESERVATIVES," the inclusion of manufactured citric acid belies this representation, rendering it false, misleading, and in violation of the law. The Defendant knows that consumers are willing to pay more for products that are labeled as free of artificial preservatives because they perceive them to be healthier alternatives to similar products that contain artificial preservatives. Indeed, Defendant advertises its Products with the intention that consumers rely on the representation made on the packaging that the Products are "free from artificial preservatives." Reasonable consumers such as Plaintiff do not have specialized knowledge necessary to identify various ingredients in the Products as being inconsistent with Defendant's advertised claim of being "free from artificial preservatives." By falsely labeling the Products as being "free from artificial preservatives," Defendant has profited from consumers' preference for products that are perceived to be healthier by being devoid of artificial preservatives. Throughout the applicable Class Periods, Defendant has falsely represented the true nature of its Products, and as a result of this false and misleading labeling, was able to sell these Products to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a frequent purchaser of Oroweat's Whole Grains 100% Whole Wheat bread. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc, is one of the largest commercial baking companies in the United States and a subsidiary of Grupo Bimbo, the world's largest baking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun (SBN 167416) KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Phone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com BKF ENGINEERS: Batchelor Case Remanded to San Mateo Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA BATCHELOR, v. BKF ENGINEERS, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-02623-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order remanding the Batchelor case to the San Mateo County Superior Court. The Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) does not preempt the plaintiff's claims because she is not covered by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA). The motion to remand is granted. The plaintiff is not covered by the CBA. That defeats removal on section 301 grounds. This is a putative class action, filed initially in state court. The plaintiff claims wage-and-hour violations by her former employer, defendants BKF Engineers and its affiliated entities, in violation of California law. BKF removed the case to federal court, asserting that CBA governs several claims, resulting in their preemption under section 301 of the LMRA, and that supplemental jurisdiction exists over any claims that do not raise federal questions. The complaint has a California class of current and former California hourly paid and/or non-exempt employees and a subclass of former employees. The Plaintiff worked as a marketing coordinator for the defendants from October 2021 through February 2023. The defendants provide engineering, construction-management, and other services for projects. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vQtk6E at no extra charge.[CC] BLACK ROCK: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Aiello v. Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-05191, on behalf of Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. ("Black Rock Coffee" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BRCB) investors who purchased: (a) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's September 2025 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between September 12, 2025 and May 12, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until August 17, 2026 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR BLACK ROCK COFFEE BAR, INC. (BRCB) INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On September 12, 2025, Black Rock Coffee conducted its IPO, selling 16,911,764 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $20.00 per share. On May 12, 2026, after the market closed, Black Rock Coffee released its first quarter 2026 financial results, revealing a same store growth rate of 5.2%, a four-point decline year-over-year compared to a 9.2% rate in same quarter the prior year. The Company further reported revenue of $55.45 million, missing consensus estimates. In the accompanying earnings call held on the same date, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Mark Davis ("Davis"), revealed that as the Company "grow[s] store density in these maturing markets and add[s] new locations around existing high-volume stores," it will "thoughtfully rebalanc[e] demand across [its] store base." He continued that "[t]his dynamic can result in some sales transfer where a portion of volume from existing stores shifts to newer locations that have opened in closer proximity." Davis further confirmed "sales transfer" had "impacted same-store sales in the quarter." On this news, Black Rock Coffee's stock price fell $3.32, or 30.3%, to close at $7.65 per share on May 13, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of this action, Black Rock Coffee stock has traded as low as $7.23 per share, a more than 63% decline from the $20 per share IPO price. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Black Rock Coffee's new store openings were leading to a cannibalization of its existing services and revenue; (2) Black Rock Coffee overstated the manner in which its expansion strategy was tailored to avoid "sales transfer"; (3) as a result of "sales transfer," the Company's financial results were materially impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Black Rock Coffee securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, contact at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Website: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] BOWERY RESIDENTS': Yearwood Seeks Conditional Collective Status --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD YEARWOOD, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. BOWERY RESIDENTS' COMMITTEE, INC., d/b/a BRC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00581-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice. Please take notice that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law, annexed materials, and all the proceedings had hereto, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by his undersigned attorneys, moves this Court for the relief detailed in the proposed Order attached hereto as Exhibit 1. BRC is a provider of housing and services for individuals experiencing homelessness. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9luMq5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BRIAN ENGLISH: Blanche Dismissed w/o Prejudice as Attorney General ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE VLADIMIR BARAHONA DOMINGUEZ, v. BRIAN ENGLISH, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00690-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order that: (1) Dismisses without prejudice Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office as respondents; (2) Denies the petition, except to find that Jorge Vladimir Barahona Dominguez must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (3) Directs the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. The District Judge's decision vacating Hurtado is unlikely to change the outcome of a custody redetermination motion filed by an individual like Mr. Barahona Dominguez, who is outside of California. The appropriate remedy is to put the ball in his court to file a motion for custody redetermination in his pending removal proceedings, with the benefit of a finding from the court that he is not categorically ineligible for bond under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). The Court likewise must deny immediate release because Mr. Barahona Dominguez has not met his burden of showing his current detention unlawful under section 1226. Immigration detainee Jorge Vladimir Barahona Dominguez, by counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging he is unlawfully confined in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lJ2HHn at no extra charge.[CC] BROOKLINEN INC: Intercepts Website Users' communications, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER LAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLINEN, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-06018 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated www.brooklinen.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc. and StackAdapt Inc. (Third Parties). According to the complaint, Brooklinen uses its Website as an online marketplace, where consumers can browse and purchase various products. When consumers visit the Website, they are presented with the opportunity to opt out of third-party tracking technologies including those which Defendant uses for targeted advertising and website performance. Unbeknownst to its customers, and contrary to its express assurance that customers have control over the sale and sharing of their personal information, Defendant intercepts and discloses its customers personally identifiable information (PII), and product purchase information to unknown third parties -- including, but not limited to, Meta and StackAdapt -- even when customers affirmatively disable the tracking technologies, says the suit. The Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain PII. By failing to procure consent, and continuing to allow the Third Parties’ tacking even after consumers reject the tracking technologies, Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Jennifer Lam is a resident and citizen of San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff maintained an active account with Facebook. When creating her Facebook account, Plaintiff provided Facebook with her PII, including her full name, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Plaintiff used the same device to access the Website that she did to access her Facebook account. Brooklinen is a bedding and home products retailer that offers "premium, hotel quality sheets and towels at accessible prices."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com BUILT BRANDS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Malone Suit Due Dec. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malone et al v. Built Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01161 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mae A D'Agostino entered an order granting Motion for extension of discovery deadlines as follows: Deadline to Join Parties September 3, 2026; Deadline to Amend Pleadings September 3, 2026; Plaintiffs Expert Disclosures August 31, 2026; Defendants Expert Disclosures October 15, 2026; Rebuttal Expert Disclosures October 30, 2026; Close of Fact and Expert Discovery November 29, 2026; Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification December 15, 2026; Defendants Opposition to Class Certification January 19, 2027; Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Class Certification February 9, 2027; Dispositive Motion Deadline March 1, 2027. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Built Brands manufactures and distributes packaged food.[CC] BUREAU OF PRISONS: Love Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTAVIOUS LOVE, et al., v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02571-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Mehta entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The court certifies the following class: "All individuals who were or will be sentenced by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for D.C. Code felony offenses and who are or will be in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to such sentence." The court certifies the Plaintiff Artavious Love as class representative and appoints counsel from the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia as class counsel. The court also grants the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and denies the Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The court defers imposition of a remedy, including the Plaintiff's request for prospective injunctive relief. In their recent filings, the Defendants have represented that a "revised Program Statement is nearing finalization," that "will completely and irrevocably eradicate the effects of the prior version of the Program Statement," but they have made no representation of actual finality since. The court therefore requires further information about the status of PS 5100.08 before devising a remedy. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report by June 29, 2026, which updates the court on the status of the BOP's revisions to PS 5100.08. The court will determine a path forward after receiving the Joint Status Report. The court concludes that the scoring system outlined in PS 5100.08 is arbitrary and capricious as applied to D.C. Code Offenders. On Sept. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff and another individual in the BOP's custody, Diamante Butler, sued to challenge PS 5100.08's criminal-history scoring system for D.C. Code Offenders. The Bureau of Prisons provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VLkOYl at no extra charge.[CC] CALIBRATED HEALTHCARE: $1.75MM Settlement Final Hearing on Aug 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Calibrated Healthcare has agreed to a $1,750,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare administrative and clinical services company failed to protect its patients' sensitive information from a February 2024 data breach. The $1.75 million Calibrated Healthcare class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 24, 2026. The agreement covers individuals whose confidential information may have been compromised as a result of the February 2024 data breach, as identified by the class list. Court documents state that approximately 34,562 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Calibrated Healthcare class action settlement can be found at CalibratedSettlement.com. Calibrated Healthcare settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses incurred on or after February 25, 2024 due to the breach. This benefit covers losses arising from fraud or identity theft and costs for late fees, overdraft fees, card cancellation or replacement fees, credit monitoring and identity theft protection, credit reports, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs and more. Moreover, class members can file a claim to receive reimbursement for up to seven hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, for a maximum of $175. Class members must submit proof, such as credit card statements, bank statements or receipts, to receive a payout for out-of-pocket losses and lost time. Court documents note that both payments may be reduced pro rata depending on the number of claims filed. To file a Calibrated settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Calibrated settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 9, 2026. As part of the settlement, all class members will be automatically sent a cash payment estimated to be between $21.44 and $28.68. The final amount of this payout will depend on the number of claims filed. Finally, all class members will automatically receive an activation code for two years of CyEx Medical Shield Total, which includes three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, along with instructions on how to enroll. The court will determine whether to grant the Calibrated Healthcare settlement final approval following a hearing on August 13, 2026. Compensation will begin to be issued to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Calibrated Healthcare class action lawsuit alleged that the California-based healthcare administration and management company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to safeguard its patients' private information, which led to a data breach sometime between February 25, 2024 and February 26, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been accessible during the breach included names, dates of birth, medical diagnoses, treatment information, health insurance information, and for some patients, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers. [GN] CALIFORNIA: Bid to Strike Friedman's Supplemental Report Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TALIB WILLIAMS, et al., v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09586-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tse entered an order denying the request to strike Dr. Brittany Friedman's supplemental report. The Defendants have failed to show that Dr. Friedman included new opinions, only that her second report was longer and relied upon more evidence. Nor do the Defendants argue that they will need to retain an additional expert to respond, only that their existing expert will need to review Dr. Friedman's supplemental report. In light of this, the Court doesn't find that Dr. Friedman's second report was an improper supplement. The Defendants do request a third day of deposition if the Court does not strike Dr. Friedman's supplemental report. That result is fair and reasonable. The parties shall first meet and confer by no later than June 26, 2026, to agree on what topics should be covered during that third day of deposition, and how much time is required. If the parties are unable to agree, they may return to Court for relief by July 10, 2026. The Defendant manages the State of California's prison system. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zk4B4a at no extra charge.[CC] CAMDEN PROPERTY: Pitchford Sues Over Deceptive Apartment Pricing ---------------------------------------------------------------- KORTNIE PITCHFORD and DWAN BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03226 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of advertising apartment rental prices that exclude mandatory recurring fees required as a condition of tenancy. According to the complaint, by advertising one price to consumers and later imposing additional unavoidable charges, the Defendant causes its apartments to appear less expensive than they actually are and deprives consumers of the ability to accurately compare housing options. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful business practice, the Plaintiffs suffered injury and damages. Camden Property Trust is a real estate investment trust based in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY, PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Email: jdemay@brysonpllc.com CAPITAL ONE: Shah Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shah et al., v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court denies as moot the related Daubert motions to exclude expert evidence. The Court grants the parties' joint administrative motion to modify the case management and scheduling order. Dispositive motions are due Sept. 18, 2026. Any opposition is due Oct. 9, 2026. Any reply is due Oct. 30, 2026. The dispositive motion hearing date is continued to Nov. 17, 2026, at 2:00 pm. A further case management conference is set for June 25, 2026, 2:00p.m. via videoconference. A joint case management statement is due June 18, 2026. The Court finds that class certification is inappropriate due to individualized inquiries of standing applies to both the Plaintiff's California and nationwide classes. Accordingly, the Court finds that issues of Article III standing provide an additional ground for denying class certification. The Plaintiff seeks to certify four classes: Server-to-Server Technology Class: "All Capital One website users who submitted a credit card application on http://www.applynow.capitalone.comfrom Sept. 1, 2022 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via any server-to-server technology, including Meta Conversions API, Google UserProvided Data Matching, Google Ads Data Hub, or SkaiFTP." Server-to-Server Technology California Subclass: "All citizens of California who submitted a credit card application on http://www.applynow.capitalone.comfrom Sept. 1, 2022 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via any server-to-server technology, including Meta Conversions API, Google User-Provided Data Matching, Google Ads Data Hub, or Skai FTP." Tracking Tags Classes: "All Capital One website users who submitted an application on http://www.applynow.capitalone.com, http://www.capitalone.com/creditcards/preapprove, or http://www.capitalone.com/apply/credit-cards/preapprovefrom Aug. 26, 2020 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via Adobe Analytics, Google Analytics, Google marketing tags, or the Meta Pixel." Tracking Tags California Subclass: "All citizens of California who submitted an application on http://www.applynow.capitalone.com,http://www.capitalone.com/ creditcards/preapprove, or http://www.capitalone.com/apply/credit-cards/preapprovefrom Aug. 26, 2020 to present and had personally identifiable information collected or transmitted via Adobe Analytics, Google Analytics, Google marketing tags, or the Meta Pixel." The Defendant is a financial institution that provides financial services across the United States and internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mz2G2N at no extra charge.[CC] CARMAX AUTO: Medina Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case JUAN MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., CARMAX FUNDING SERVICES, LLC, CARMAX FUNDING SERVICES II, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2026CUOE064317, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06334 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. is a used-car retailer based in Virginia. CarMax Funding Services, LLC is a financial services provider based in Virginia. CarMax Funding Services II, LLC is a financial services provider based in Virginia. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq. Catherine L. Brackett, Esq. Kari J. Van Sinden, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com catherine.brackett@ogletree.com kari.vansinden@ogletree.com CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Parties Must File Status Report by August 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LEHMAN, v. CASCADIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-05193-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Estudillo entered a minute order as follows: -- The Parties shall file a joint status report no later than Aug. 19, 2026 addressing whether the Parties will request to stay all pre-trial case deadlines pursuant to an agreement to participate in mediation. -- If the Parties do not intend to participate in mediation, the joint status report shall propose (1) deadlines for disclosing expert witnesses and rebuttal expert witnesses; (2) a deadline for the motion for class certification; and (3) a briefing schedule for the motion for class certification. The Defendant operates skilled nursing, assisted living, home health, and hospice throughout the western United States." A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TYCW0P at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Harper Seeks Class Cert. Status Conference ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, and LUIS VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902-DC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to schedule a status conference to discuss the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for interim awards and Charter's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs propose that a conference be scheduled on a date convenient for the Court during the weeks of June 29, July 6, or July 27. Rulings on the motions, in the interim, would moot this request. If the Court is not yet prepared to rule on the motions, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to schedule a short status conference to discuss the motions and the appropriate next steps of the litigation. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Oct. 4, 2024, Charter responded on November 1, 2024, and the Plaintiffs replied on Nov. 21, 2024. The Defendant is an American broadband connectivity company and cable operator. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTs36q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq. SODERSTROM LAW PC 1 Park Plaza, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 667-4700 Facsimile: (949) 424-8091 E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com CHINA INTERNATIONAL: Conspires to Fix Containers' Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Coast Container, Inc. and all others similarly situated direct purchasers, Plaintiff v. China International Marine Containers Co., Ltd., CIMC USA, Inc., CXIC Group Containers Co. Ltd., Shanghai Universal Logistics Equipment Co., Ltd., Singamas Container Holdings Ltd., and DOES 1-2, Case No. 3:26-cv-06337 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to restrict output and fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices for standard dry shipping containers directly affected the prices paid by Plaintiff for such containers. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons and entities that directly purchased standard dry shipping containers from Defendants or their Co-Conspirators during the Class Period. The Plaintiff paid artificially inflated and supracompetitive prices for standard dry shipping containers purchased from Defendants and their Co-Conspirators and thereby suffered antitrust injury to its business and property, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff directly purchased standard dry shipping containers from at least one Defendant for use in its business operations. Plaintiff Atlantic Coast Container, Inc. paid supracompetitive prices for the containers that it directly purchased from Defendants during the Class Period, says the suit. China International is a manufacturer of standard dry shipping containers and one of the dominant participants in the global container manufacturing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christian S. Ruano, Esq. Lauren Devens, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com ldevens@cpmlegal.com CHRIS PIAETE: Class Cert Bid Fling in Talamante Suit Due Oct. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY TALAMANTE, et al., v. CHRIS PIAETE, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00509-ART-CLB (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification deadlines, together with the corresponding downstream merits and pretrial deadlines, by 60 days as follows: The Plaintiffs' class certification Aug. 13, 2026 expert disclosures and reports: The Defendants' class certification Sept. 14, 2026 expert disclosures and reports: Completion of expert depositions Sept. 28, 2026 related to class certification: The Plaintiffs' motion for class Oct. 12, 2026 certification: The Defendants' opposition to motion Nov. 2, 2026 for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Nov. 16, 2026 motion for class certification: Discovery cut-off: Nov. 30, 2026 All other provisions of the Scheduling Order as previously modified by ECF No. 69, shall remain in effect. This is a putative class action brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and related state law claims concerning conditions and practices within a state correctional facility. It presents complex factual and legal issues that require coordinated discovery on class-wide issues, including extensive medical records, environmental monitoring data, engineering records, and policy documents bearing on Rule 23 commonality, typicality, and predominance. Although Plaintiffs timely served their initial disclosures on March 4, 2026, the Defendants did not serve their initial disclosures until May 7, 2026, more than two months after the Plaintiffs'. Because Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosures are currently due on June 14, 2026, the Plaintiffs will have insufficient time between receiving Defendants' overdue written discovery responses and document productions and preparing and finalizing their class certification expert reports. The Defendant is A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1rqEif at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony P. Sgro, Esq. Elaine Odeh, Esq. SGRO & ROGER 2901 El Camino Avenue, Suite 204 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 384-9800 Facsimile: (702) 665-4120 E-mail: tsgro@sgroandroger.com eodeh@sgroandroger.com The Defendants are represented by: Victoria Corey, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 State of Nevada Way., Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89119 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE: Mendoza Wins Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SATURNINO SOSOF MENDOZA, v. CHRISTOPHER J. LaROSE, Senior Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center; TODD BLANCHE, Acting United States Attorney General; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; PATRICK DIVVER, ICE San Diego Field Office Director, in their official capacities, Case No. 3:26-cv-03378-JES-MSB (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 224. Accordingly, the Court orders the following: (1) The Court orders the Government to provide the noncitizen with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) within 14 days of this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance; (2) Respondents are ordered to file a Notice of compliance within five (5) days of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing, including apprising the Court of the results of the hearing; and (3) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Petitioner was not apprehended at or near the border. He has resided in the United States and has been in the Respondents' custody since March 12, 2026, well after his entry. These facts make clear that the 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 the Petitioner's detention. The Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who unlawfully entered the United States in approximately December 2021. Since then, Petitioner has been regularly employed in landscaping. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q1arMy at no extra charge.[CC] COLORADO: Knellinger Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID KNELLINGER and ROBERT STOREY, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. DAVID YOUNG, in his individual and official capacities as Colorado State Treasurer, Colorado Office of Treasury, and BIANCA GARDELLI, in her individual and official capacities as Director of Colorado Department of Treasury, Unclaimed Property Division, Case No. 1:22-cv-01379-CNS-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify the proposed Class, appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoint PAUL LLP and Greiner & Associates, PLLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs move to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class of property owners seeking injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 defined as: "All persons or entities whose property was transferred to Colorado pursuant to Colorado's Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act ("RUUPA") from June 1, 2020 to the present and remains in the custody and control of Colorado." Class certification is appropriate because the Plaintiffs challenge a state statute and seek equitable relief that is indivisible in nature. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class to assert the following claims: (1) against the Defendants in their official capacities for violations of the Due Process Clause for failure to send predeprivation notice and (2) against the Defendants in their official capacities for violations of the Due Process Clause by commingling unclaimed property trust funds with Colorado's general revenue fund. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tTl3zq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Greiner, Esq. Christopher Ross, Esq. GREINER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 401 Austin Highway, Suite 110 San Antonio, TX 78209 Telephone: (210) 824–6529 Facsimile: (210) 829–5528 E-mail: service@greinerattorneys.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. David W. Bodenheimer, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Laura@PaulLLP.com David@PaulLLP.com COLUMBIA ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Shiner, writing for ABC 17 News, reports that a second class action lawsuit was filed against Columbia Orthopaedic Group on Monday, June 22, in Boone County. The new lawsuit also alleges that Columbia Orthopaedic Group did not do enough to protect patients' personal information after a ransomware attack occurred last month. A class-action lawsuit was filed last week in Boone County by Vicki Dixon with the same accusations. The plaintiff in the new case is listed as Geraldine Mize. Both lawsuits allege the ransomware-for-hire group LockBit 5 stole patients' private information and shared it on the dark web. The new lawsuit accuses Columbia Orthopaedic Group of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violating the Missouri Merchandising Act. [GN] COMPASS GROUP: Class Cert. Filing Due August 3 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'BRIEN v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-13327 (D.N.J., Filed Dec. 20, 2017), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order directing the parties to file their respective motions for class certification and motions for summary judgment on or before Aug. 3, 2026 and complete the briefing schedule consistent with the deadlines set forth in this Court's Order entered on Dec. 11, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Compass retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[CC] COOKUNITY INC: Wildman Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case MATTHEW WILDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COOKUNITY, INC., Case No. 26-2-1558-7 SEA, was removed from the King County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 12, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02063 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's marketing emails violate Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act by creating a misleading sense of urgency. CookUnity, Inc. is a developer of food delivery platform based in New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: William H. Walsh, Esq. Patrick Clifford, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 999 Third Avenue Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 340-1000 Email: wwalsh@cozen.com CROCS INC: Mongalo Seeks to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE MONGALO, CHELSEA GARLAND, PHILIP WERNER, and MELISSA HARMON, each an individual, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-09037-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion that Exhibits 7 & 21 to declaration of Anthony Patek in support of plaintiffs' administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs inadvertently filed redacted versions of Exhibits 7 and 21 to the declaration of Anthony Patek in support of the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to consider whether another Party's material should be sealed. The unredacted versions of Exhibits 7 and 21 are being filed under seal herewith. Crocs is an American footwear company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5FacPa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com DANAHER CORPORATION: Nadeau Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NADEAU, WAYNE GAGNE, PATRICK FARRELL and all others similarly situated, v. DANAHER CORPORATION, PALL CORPORATION, BECKMAN COULTER, INC., GLOBAL LIFE SCIENCES SOLUTIONS USA LLC d/b/a CYTIVA, AB SCIEX LLC d/b/a SCIEX, Case No. 1:26-cv-00923-MJS (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing their motion for class certification from the deadline set by Local Rule 23.1(b) (90 days after filing of a Complaint) to the end of discovery. Counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for the Defendants regarding the relief sought in this motion on June 12, 2026. The Defendants advised that they oppose the motion. In support of this motion, the Plaintiffs incorporate the reasons set forth in their accompanying Memorandum of Law. Danaher Corporation is an American healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XMdyX0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George G. Triantis, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. Sophia L. Walker, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4761 Facsimile: (813) 559-4870 E-mail: Gtriantis@forthepeople.com medelman@forthepeople.com sophia.walker@forthepeople.com DAYLIGHT FOODS: Arreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daylight Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Arreola, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Daylight Foods, LLC, Case No. 26CV193677 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Daylight Foods -- https://daylightfoods.com/ -- is the premier food service distributor in Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com DEL MAR LAW: Cal. App. Affirms Citizens Malicious Prosecution Loss ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN DONBOLI et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. D085849 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the judgment of Judge Wendy M. Behan of the Superior Court of San Diego County in favor of the Defendants. In June 2014, attorneys John Donboli and JL Sean Slattery of Del Mar Law Group LLP filed a proposed class action against Citizens, alleging the company falsely labeled its jeans as "Made in the U.S.A." in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, Section 1750 et seq.), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Section 17200), and California's "Made in U.S.A." labeling law. The named plaintiff, Louise Clark, alleged that she purchased a pair of Citizens jeans labeled "Made in the U.S.A." even though some of the component parts were manufactured outside the United States. Citizens moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that California's "Made in U.S.A." labeling law was preempted by federal labeling requirements, but the federal district court denied the motion, finding that the company could comply with both state and federal law. After learning during discovery that Clark was the sister-in-law of lead attorney Slattery, Citizens moved to disqualify Law Group. Before the court ruled, Clark withdrew and Coni Hass was substituted as the named plaintiff. The district court found the substitution mooted the disqualification motion and found no bad faith. Law Group filed a second amended complaint substituting Hass as the named plaintiff. Hass alleged she purchased Citizens jeans labeled "Made in the U.S.A." and asserted the same false labeling, UCL, and CLRA claims as the original plaintiff. While Hass's lawsuit was pending, the California Legislature amended Section 17533.7, which governs "Made in U.S.A." labeling. The amended statute continued to prohibit products from being labeled "Made in U.S.A." if they were entirely or substantially manufactured outside the United States. However, it created two exceptions: the label is permitted if foreign-sourced materials make up no more than 5% of the product's final wholesale value, or no more than 10% if those materials cannot be sourced domestically. After the amendment to Section 17533.7, Citizens moved to dismiss Hass' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the revised statute. The district court granted the motion with leave to amend. Hass declined to amend her complaint, and the court dismissed the case. In February 2018, Citizens filed a malicious prosecution action against Hass, Clark, attorneys Donboli and Slattery, and Law Group. After considering the evidence, the trial court found that Citizens failed to establish that the defendants lacked probable cause to bring the underlying lawsuit and entered judgment in the Defendants' favor. On appeal, Citizens argued that the trial court erred because Clark was legally an inadequate class representative. It contended that, under Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253, Clark's relationship as attorney Slattery's sister-in-law disqualified her from serving as the representative plaintiff. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Citizens' reading of Apple and, in any event, does not think a conflict of interest between the representative plaintiff and the class necessarily establishes that a plaintiff's claim lacked probable cause. In the unpublished portion of its Opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected several additional arguments by Citizens that the trial court prejudicially erred in certain of its evidentiary rulings. Accordingly, it affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/Du6ELgBL3. Ross, Peter W. Ross -- pross@rossllp.la -- and Charles Avrith -- cavrith@rossllp.la -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin, Douglas A. Pettit -- dpettit@pettitkohn.com -- Alexis C. Garcia -- agarcia@pettitkohn.com -- and Annie F. Fraser -- afraser@pettitkohn.com -- for Defendants and Respondents. DELAWARE NORTH: Love Sues Over Compromised Clients' Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILLY LOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01199 (W.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on January 28, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Delaware North Companies, Inc. is a hospitality and entertainment company, headquartered in Buffalo, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hadley E. Lundback, Esq. FARACI LANGE, LLP 1882 South Winton Road, Suite 1 Rochester, NY 14618 Telephone: (585) 325-5150 Facsimile: (585) 325-3285 Email: hadley@faraci.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Riya Sharma, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com DEVON ENERGY: Class Settlement in Kunneman Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kunneman Properties LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon Energy Corp., et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-00131-DES (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Snow entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, certifying the class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of notice, and setting date for final fairness hearing. 1. The certified Settlement Class is defined as follows: "All non-excluded persons or entities who are royalty owners in Oklahoma wells who received royalty payments from Devon for the Claim Period for the Class Wells operated by Devon." The Class claims relate to royalty payments for gas and its constituents (such as residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, nitrogen, or drip condensate). Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Devon, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates; (4) Fortis Sooner Trend, LLC, Fortis Minerals II, LLC, FMII STM, LLC, Sooner Trend Minerals, LLC, Phenom Minerals, LLC, Charles David Nutley, Danny George, Dan McClure, Kelly McClure Callant, C. Benjamin Nutley, White River Royalties, LLC, and their relatives, affiliates, successors, and assigns; (5) persons or entities that the Plaintiff's counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (6) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (7) officers of the Court. 2. The Court appoints Plaintiff Kunneman Properties LLC as Class Representative, and the Plaintiff's Counsel Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of Bradford & Wilson PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel and Rex A. Sharp of Sharp Law LLP as Additional Class Counsel. 3. A final fairness hearing shall be held on Sept. 21, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. This is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the alleged underpayment of royalty on gas and gas constituents from the Class Wells during the Claim Period. Devon is an independent U.S. oil and gas exploration company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hOzoZy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913)901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey C. King, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 347-5270 Facsimile: (817) 347-5299 E-mail: jeffrey.c.king@klgates.com - and - Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq. Patrick L. Stein, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT Eighth Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 North Robinson Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 E-mail: tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com DOE THE SURGEON: Initial CMC Entered in Farmer Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEE DEIDRE FARMER, v. DOE THE SURGEON, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02953-JPO-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order scheduling initial case management conference. The action has been referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement. All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave. No initial case management conference yet having taken place in this action, it is ordered that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. ET in Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. At the conference, the parties must be prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and (c). The counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case Management Conference. No later than one week (seven (7) calendar days) before the conference, the parties shall file a Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan, via ECF, signed by counsel for each party. A template is available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BWkHwW at no extra charge.[CC] DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deactivated Seattle Dashers --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that DoorDash routinely deactivates Seattle delivery drivers' accounts without conducting a fair investigation or providing due process protections mandated by local law. The 25-page complaint contends that DoorDash's process for deactivating Seattle Dashers -- i.e., blocking their access to the DoorDash app or changing their status to be ineligible to accept offers -- has violated Seattle's App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance, which took effect at the start of 2025 and limits the circumstances under which app-based workers performing services in Seattle can be removed from a platform. Specifically, the suit relays, the law prohibits deactivations based on customer ratings, failing to complete offers due to circumstances outside the worker's control, or background checks, except in strictly defined circumstances. Instead, the ordinance permits deactivation for actions reasonably related to the safe and efficient operation of the platform, such as in cases of "egregious misconduct," the filing notes. Importantly, the suit says, the App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance requires DoorDash to follow specific steps when deactivating a driver, including conducting a "fair and objective" investigation, providing evidence that a violation occurred, accounting for "mitigating circumstances," providing notice of deactivation 14 days in advance and on the effective date, and giving workers an opportunity to appeal or challenge the decision. "Despite the Ordinance's strict limitations on deactivations and clear and unambiguous notice, records, evidence and due-process requirements for deactivated workers, deactivations of covered Seattle Dashers have continued at a high rate," the filing claims, noting that hundreds of Seattle Dashers are deactivated every quarter, sometimes dozens per week. The plaintiff in the lawsuit was a Seattle Dasher who had allegedly completed more than 4,700 deliveries since 2020 with a 99-percent completion rate and a rating of 4.85 out of five stars. According to the complaint, the plaintiff's account was abruptly deactivated in June 2025 after a late-night delivery from a restaurant and a 7-Eleven store. DoorDash allegedly informed the plaintiff that his deactivation was due to a "pattern" of accepting and not completing deliveries, resulting in cancellations. The lawsuit claims that DoorDash provided no prior notice, supporting documentation, or actual evidence to justify the deactivation. After filing an appeal the next morning, the plaintiff said he received an automated denial within "mere minutes" from a no-reply DoorDash email address. The reply was "similarly uninformative" and contained no records, evidence or documentation, the case relays. Only after contacting the Seattle Office of Labor Standards did the plaintiff hear from an actual DoorDash representative and receive additional information, the filing says. At that point, the plaintiff was allegedly told that, based on DoorDash records, he had been driving more than 300 miles per hour during deliveries and that his location data placed him in Germany at the time of deliveries in Seattle. The plaintiff drove a Kia Niro hybrid, which tops out at around 100 miles per hour, the complaint notes, arguing that DoorDash relied on obviously flawed data while failing to conduct the investigation required by law. Although his account was eventually reactivated after this process, the plaintiff does not intend to work for DoorDash again due to his "unfair, patently illegal and humiliating experience," the case says. Per the suit, the plaintiff was deactivated for over a month, losing thousands of dollars of income. The DoorDash class action lawsuit seeks to represent all independent delivery contractors whose access to DoorDash's worker platform was deactivated between January 1, 2025 and the date of class certification and, during the 180 days preceding the deactivation, at least 25 percent of their completed offers (or offers canceled without cause) involved performing services in Seattle for DoorDash or whose deactivation was related to an incident or incidents that occurred while performing services in Seattle for DoorDash. [GN] DRINK BREZ: James Sues Over Automatic Paid Subscription Renewal --------------------------------------------------------------- DALLAS JAMES v. DRINK BREZ LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.DRINKBREZ.COM, Case No. 26STCV17896 (Cal. Super., June 3, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and others similarly situated arising after the Plaintiff purchased an automatically renewing paid subscription at website, www.drinkbrez.com which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. 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 by failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law and 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. DrinkBrez is a beverage company that produces cannabis and mushroom-infused drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com DUPONT: "Bower" Wage Suit Wins Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Breana A. Bower, Jadin Dickerson, Logan Snyder, Zach Northup, and Sara Malone, Plaintiffs, v. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. and DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-453-MAK (D. Del.), Judge Mark A. Kearney of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Bower's motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act in a Memorandum dated June 17, 2026. Bower worked for the defendants as an hourly machine operator in Ohio from January 25, 2021 until April 1, 2025. She handled chemicals and hazardous materials and was required to don protective clothing and attend shift-change meetings before and after her scheduled shift without pay. The defendants did not pay her overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, and other hourly production employees experienced the same unpaid practices. Earlier suits over the same conduct were voluntarily dismissed, after which other employees filed an Ohio state court case, Pollock v. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., to approve a collective settlement. Bower did not join that settlement because she became skeptical of the result after receiving a notice for a payment amount lower than what DuPont owed her. She then filed this action seeking overtime wages under the FLSA and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act on behalf of a collective and class of employees who had not joined the Pollock settlement of Ohio state court. The defendants opposed conditional certification on three grounds: that the proposed collective duplicated the Pollock settlement collective, that Bower failed to make the required modest factual showing and was unfit to serve as representative, and that DuPont de Nemours was not her employer. On the duplication argument, the court held that Congress through the FLSA allows multiple collective actions arising from the same policies and declined to read in a bar the statute did not impose. The court noted some judges exercise discretion to deny certification of duplicative collectives, but found the circumstances here, including employee concerns about inadequate representation in the Pollock settlement, supported certification regardless of which approach applied. On the employer question, the court found Bower made no modest factual showing that DuPont de Nemours, a holding company, was a joint employer with DuPont Specialty Products. Bower did not respond to this argument, and the declarations supporting her motion identified DuPont Specialty Products, not DuPont de Nemours, as the employer. The court accordingly limited the collective to employees of DuPont Specialty Products and excluded DuPont de Nemours. As to the modest factual showing itself, the court found Bower and other hourly production employees swore to a common DuPont Specialty Products policy of not paying for required pre- and post-shift work. The court declined to weigh the defendants' exhibits or evaluate the merits at this stage, holding that conditional certification review remained an extremely lenient inquiry. The court approved notice to the collective by mail, email, and text message, along with a reminder notice at the midpoint of the notice period, over the defendants' objection to text notice. The court modified Bower's proposed notice and consent forms in three respects: removing references to DuPont de Nemours, recalculating the opt-in period as 60 days from the date of the order rather than 90 days from mailing, and updating the identified judge's name following reassignment of the case. The court also ordered DuPont Specialty Products to produce, within 14 days, a spreadsheet identifying potential opt-in members, including full names, dates of employment, work locations, job titles, last known mailing addresses, personal email addresses, and cell phone numbers. The court concluded that Bower made the modest factual showing required for conditional certification, granted her motion as to DuPont Specialty Products, and approved her proposed notice subject to the noted modifications. A copy of the Court's decision dated Jun 17, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YOxEHq from PacerMonitor.com ELMPARK MANOR: Court OKs CAD$650,000 Deal in Apartment Fire Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that Elmpark Manor Apartments and Ronkay Management Inc. have agreed to settle a certified class action involving people who lived at or were visiting 235 Gosford Boulevard during a fire that took place at the building on November 15, 2019. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has approved the settlement. This notice provides class members with basic information about the lawsuit and settlement. Further information can be found online at Gosford Apartment Fire - Diamond and Diamond Lawyers. Class members are strongly encouraged to read the long form notice available at Gosford Apartment Fire - Diamond and Diamond Lawyers. What is the class action about? On November 15, 2019, a fire broke out at a residential high-rise building at 235 Gosford Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario (Gosford Apartments). Hundreds of residents were displaced by the fire and one person was killed. The class action alleges that the fire was the result of the Defendants' failure to properly maintain Gosford Apartments. The Defendants deny the Plaintiff's allegations and have not admitted to any wrongdoing. Who is included? To be eligible for payment, you must be a member of the class, which is defined as follows: -- All persons in Canada (including their estates, executors or personal representatives) who on November 15, 2019, at the time of the Fire, regularly resided in and/or were visiting the Premises (the "Class Members"). The Sub-Classes are defined as: -- All persons in Canada (including their estates, executors or personal representatives) who on November 15, 2019, at the time of the Fire, regularly resided in and/or were visiting the Premises (the "Class Members"). -- All persons in Canada who on November 15, 2019 were tenants of the Premises, pursuant to a lease agreement (the "Tenants Class"); -- All persons in Canada who on November 15, 2019 were tenants of the Premises, pursuant to a lease agreement and who did not receive temporary accommodations from the Owner Defendant and who have not returned to live at the Premises (the "Tenants Class I"); -- All persons in Canada who on November 15, 2019 were tenants of the Premises, pursuant to a lease agreement and who did not receive temporary accommodations from the Owner Defendant and who have resumed living at the Premises (the "Tenants Class ii"); -- All persons in Canada who on November 15, 2019 were tenants of the Premises, pursuant to a lease agreement and who received temporary accommodations from the Owner Defendant and who have not returned to live at the Premises (the "Tenants Class iii"); -- All persons in Canada who on November 15, 2019 were tenants of the Premises, pursuant to a lease agreement and who received temporary accommodations from the Owner Defendant and who have resumed living at the Premises (the "Tenants Class iv"); -- All persons in Canada who on November 15, 2019 were regularly residing at the Premises, but not lessors (the "Residents Class"); and -- All persons in Canada who on November 15, 2019 were visitors or guests at the Premises (the "Visitors Class"). If you are not sure whether you are a member of the class, you may contact Class Counsel for assistance. If you are a class member, and you have not opted out of this proceeding, you are bound by the settlement and eligible to claim compensation. What Does the Settlement Provide? Elmpark Manor Apartments and Ronkay Management Inc. will pay CAD $650,000.00 (the "Settlement Fund") to resolve the class action. Subject to the Courts' approvals, after class counsel fees, disbursements, and administration costs, the remaining funds may be used to provide the following, to eligible claimants who submit valid and timely claims (subject to the settlement terms and any pro rata adjustments): Each Class member within the Residents Class and Tenants Class presenting a valid Claim will be eligible to receive a Monetary Benefit of up to $1,119.63. Each Class member within the Visitors Class presenting a valid Claim will be eligible to receive a Monetary Benefit of up to $25. Residual Balance. If there are any funds leftover after payments to Class members are calculated, each member of the Residents Class and Tenants Class will receive a proportional increase in their payment, up to a maximum of $5,000 each. Pro Rata Adjustments. In the event that the value of valid Claims for Monetary Benefits exceeds the remaining funds available from the Settlement Amount after deduction of Class Counsel Fees and Disbursements, the amount of Monetary Benefits granted will be reduced pro rata accordingly. Cy Pres Payment In the event that there are any funds leftover after payments to Class Members following a payment of up to $5,000 to each member of the Residents Class and Tenants Class, any residual funds shall be donated to Pro Bono Ontario. Your options and what they mean If you are a Class Member, you have the following options: Make a claim: You may submit a claim for compensation. To do so, you must complete a Claim Form and send it to GosfordSettlement@diamondlaw.ca by September 16, 2026 at 5:00pm. A copy of the Claim Form is available at: Gosford Apartment Fire - Diamond and Diamond Lawyers. It is essential that you submit your Claim Form before the deadline. Do Nothing. If you do not submit a claim for compensation under the settlement before the deadline, you will give up the opportunity to obtain compensation for any harm related to the fire at 235 Gosford Boulevard on November 15, 2019. You will not be able to sue for damages resulting from the fire at a later date. Do you know any other class members? Please share this information with them. Class Counsel Diamond & Diamond Lawyers LLP act as class counsel. You will not need to pay any legal fees out of your own pocket; however, if you retain another lawyer or representative then you must pay fees, disbursements and taxes associated with their services. For more information and to access the settlement agreement, the claim forms, important deadlines, and any further updates, please visit Gosford Apartment Fire - Diamond and Diamond Lawyers or contact class counsel: Mathura Santhirasegaram, Esq. Shir Zisckind, Esq. Diamond & Diamond Lawyers LLP 255 Consumers Road, 5th Floor Toronto, Ontario, M2J 1R4 Phone: (416) 256-1600 Fax: (416) 256-0100 Email: GosfordSettlement@diamondlaw.ca In case of discrepancies between this notice and the settlement agreement, the settlement agreement prevails. [GN] EQUIMINE INC: Moreland Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as MAXEL MORELAND, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIMINE INC. D/B/A PROPSTREAM a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 30-2026-01566183-CU-FR-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01516 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that EquiMine operates a public real estate directory and data-broker platform that allows users to search for property owners and obtain contact information, including mobile phone numbers, after performing a "skip trace." The Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for alleged violations of the Colorado Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. The Plaintiff further alleges that EquiMine violated Colo. Rev. Stat. by knowingly listing cellular telephone numbers of Colorado residents in a directory for a commercial purpose without affirmative consent. EquiMine Inc., d/b/a PropStream, provides real estate data and lead generation software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karan Singh Dhadialla, Esq. Matthew Baker, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 101 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-6213 Facsimile: (415) 291-6313 E-mail: karan.dhadialla@bakerbotts.com matthew.baker@bakerbotts.com - and - Justin O. Bryant, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 1001 Page Mill Road Building One, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 739-7574 E-mail: justin.bryant@bakerbotts.com FCA US: Bid to Dismiss McNeely Suit Junked ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew McNeely, et al., v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-11596-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Levy entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Court recognizes that limited discovery on formation of the arbitration agreement is necessary. As such, the parties are ordered to conduct limited early discovery to determine the existence of any relevant arbitration agreements and the parties’ potential rights to invoke those arbitration agreements, including but not limited to whether the Plaintiffs are "subject to additional arbitration agreements executed during the purchase of their vehicles." The deadline to complete arbitration-related discovery is Sept.10, 2026. After this deadline, the parties shall appear for a status conference to be set by the Court to discuss the status of the parties' arbitration-related discovery and, if appropriate, to set a briefing schedule for any proposed renewed motion to compel arbitration and/or motion to dismiss There is a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether the agreement to arbitrate was ever concluded. The Plaintiffs have set forth evidence that they either did not know about the Arbitration Provision or did not agree to it, and the Defendant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the Plaintiffs were on notice of the Arbitration Provision. For those reasons, the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have standing, and their claims are not moot despite the existence of a recall. The Plaintiffs allege that certain vehicles manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Defendant contain a defect related to the vehicles' multimedia and video interface called Uconnect. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yusQ4a at no extra charge.[CC] FINANCIAL CORP: O'Neill Balks at For-Cause Removal Provision ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL O'NEILL v. BEACON FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2026-0828 (Del. Ch., June 24, 2026) is verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of Beacon Financial Corporation, for violating Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Plaintiff brings a facial challenge to a provision of the Company's certificate of incorporation that purports to require cause to remove any director. As the Court recognized in VAALCO, a Delaware corporation may only have a For Cause Removal Provision if it has a classified board or cumulative voting. The Company's board is no longer classified and the Company never had cumulative voting. Thus, the For-Cause Removal Provision violates Section 141(k) and is invalid. The Plaintiff. a stockholder of the Company, seeks a judgment declaring that the For-Cause Removal Provision of the Charter is illegal and enjoining its enforcement. Beacon is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The Company is a holding company with operating subsidiaries that provide commercial, business, and retail banking services to customers in the Northeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 1120 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 836-9630 - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall #1307 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 - and – Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8010 E-mail: daniel@jvk-law.com FIRST FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees Suit for $300,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that First Federal Bank of Kansas City has agreed to a $300,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the financial institution improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds but that settled on negative funds. The $300,000 First Federal Bank of Kansas City class action settlement covers all current and former holders of a personal checking account at the bank who, between February 23, 2019 and May 5, 2026, incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds and settled on negative funds in the same amount for which the transaction was authorized. Court documents state that consumers who received a settlement notice are automatically covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the First Federal Bank of Kansas City (FFBOKC) overdraft fee settlement can be found at MonkOverdraftFeeSettlement.com. First Federal Bank of Kansas City settlement class members do not need to take any action to receive a cash payment from the deal. The amount of each class member's payout will depend on the amount of fees they paid for covered transactions, among other factors. Class members who are current FFBOKC accountholders will receive their settlement payment as an automatic credit to their account, whereas former accountholders will receive their cash payout via check. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the FFBOKC overdraft fee settlement following a hearing on October 1, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The First Federal Bank of Kansas City class action lawsuit alleged that the Missouri-based financial institution wrongfully charged checking account customers improper overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds but that later settled on negative funds in the same amount for which the transaction was approved. [GN] FIRST NATIONAL: McAuley Fraud Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------ The case DANIEL MCAULEY JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. CI-26-03065, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 11, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04014 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting conversion, and unjust enrichment. First National Bank of Pennsylvania is a federally chartered national bank headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nellie E. Hestin, Esq. Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Tower Two-Sixty 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 667-6000 Facsimile: (412) 667-6050 Email: nhestin@mcguirewoods.com jshaw@mcguirewoods.com FISHWOODCO: Renewed Bid to Confirm Arbitration Award Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC., v. FISHWOODCO GMBH, Case No. 5:22-cv-03218-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting in part, denying in part Twitch's renewed petition to confirm arbitration award. The Court finds that despite Twitch's completion of jurisdictional discovery, Twitch has not identified sufficient facts from which to conclude that the Loots Intervenors purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and privileges of conducting activities in California such that the maintenance of a suit against them comports with the Constitutional notions of due process. For this reason, the Court is without jurisdiction to confirm the Loots Intervenor Clause added to the Feb. 25, 2022, Amended Award. Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Twitch's Renewed Petition to Confirm Arbitration Awards and for Entry of Judgment on Binding Arbitration Award. The Court GRANTS Twitch's Renewed Petition as to the Jan. 4, 2021, and May 7, 2021, Arbitration Awards, and DENIES the Petition as to the Feb. 25, 2022, Amended Arbitration Award, which is identical to the Jan. 4, 2021, Award but adds the Loots Intervenors Clause. The Court grants Twitch's request for post-Award, prejudgment and post-judgment interest to be calculated from the Feb. 25, 2022, Amended Award to be calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1961. On June 2, 2022, Twitch petitioned this Court for confirmation of the January 4, 2021, May 7, 2021, and February 25, 2022, Tribunal-issued awards and orders (collectively, the "Awards") and entry of judgment in its favor. On May 9, 2024, the Court granted Twitch's request for limited jurisdictional discovery and denied the Loots Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to renew the Motion after Twitch was provided a full and fair opportunity to complete jurisdictional discovery. On Sept. 5, 2025, Twitch renewed its petition to confirm the arbitration award, seeking entry of judgment on the binding arbitration award. Twitch provides streaming services for content creators. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pl7ih3 at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Loses Bid to Exclude Expert in F-150 Transmission Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as James Dolan, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:23cv512 (E.D. Va.), Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, denied Ford's renewed motion to exclude the testimony of Dr.-Ing. Jurgen Greiner. Plaintiff James Dolan purchased a 2018 Ford F-150 with a 10R80 ten-speed automatic transmission in October 2018 and began noticing harsh shifting within the first year. Plaintiff Morris purchased a 2020 Ford Expedition with the same transmission in September 2020 and later experienced similar transmission issues. Dolan filed suit on behalf of himself and a Virginia class of consumers, alleging that Ford knowingly designed, manufactured, and sold vehicles equipped with a defective 10R80 transmission that shifted harshly and erratically. The complaint set out four counts: breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraud in the inducement by omission, and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Ford's motion to dismiss was denied, and the case proceeded to the class certification phase. Plaintiffs designated Dr. Greiner, a mechanical engineer with over 20 years of experience at Daimler AG, Ijuk GmbH, and ZF Friedrichshafen AG, as their expert on the defective transmission. His opening report identified architectural and component defects in the 10R80 transmission, and his rebuttal report addressed Ford's responsive arguments. Ford raised several objections under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended in 2023, arguing that Dr. Greiner's theories were unsupported by industry standards or testing, his methodology was flawed, his opinions lacked sufficient factual basis, his testimony improperly addressed Ford's state of mind, and his vehicle safety opinions were inadmissible. The court rejected each objection. On testing, the court found that Dr. Greiner applied an evaluative process developed and used over twenty years across the transmission industry, and that he relied on Ford's own internal testing and engineering documents rather than conducting independent testing. The court distinguished Belville v. Ford Motor Co. and Peters-Martin v. Navistar International Transportation Corp., noting that those cases involved experts who relied on no testing at all, unlike Dr. Greiner. On sufficiency of facts and data, the court addressed five sub-arguments. It found that Dr. Greiner's reliance on documents identified through Plaintiffs' counsel was not impermissible cherry-picking, that his consideration of warranty repair data fell within his experiential expertise, that his illustrative citations to Wikipedia played no substantive role in his opinions, that he had in fact considered and weighed contrary evidence including JD Power data, and that the 10R80 transmission's architecture and component defects remained consistent across vehicle models. On the state-of-mind objection, the court held that Dr. Greiner's statements about what information was available to Ford, what Ford represented about the transmission, and what actions Ford took were factual statements rather than impermissible testimony about corporate motive or intent. On the vehicle safety objection, the court overruled it without prejudice, finding that neither side had adequately briefed the admissibility of Dr. Greiner's specific safety-related statements. Applying the four-part Rule 702 framework, the court concluded that Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Greiner's opinions would help the trier of fact, were based on sufficient facts or data, were the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflected a reliable application of those principles to the facts of the case. Accordingly, the court denied Ford's renewed motion to exclude Dr. Greiner's testimony. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated June 17, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NOp7SW from PacerMonitor.com FORD MOTOR: Wins Bid to Exclude Yadav's Testimony in Dolan Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN and JAMES MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order granting Ford Motor Company's renewed motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Om Prakash Yadav and strike his untimely submissions. Dr. Yadav shall not be permitted to testify in this matter. The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs may designate a new warranty rate expert after class certification briefing is complete. Ford is an American multinational automaker. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FUxoRF at no extra charge.[CC] FOREMOST RETIREMENT: Faces Araque Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foremost Retirement Resort Inc. The case is captioned as Jose Angel Araque III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public vs. Foremost Retirement Resort Inc., a California Corporation et al., Case No. CIVSB2616784 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino Cty., June 3, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A Dauber. The nature of suit states Employment Unlimited. The Defendants include Foremost Retirement Resort Inc., a California Corporation, and Zizo Investments LLC, a California Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM WestLake Office Court 5743 Corsa Ave Suite 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 FOX ROTHSCHILD: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Smith Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LADANA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04059 (E.D. Pa., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about May 28, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Fox Rothschild LLP is a law firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com GASTRO HEALTH: Faces Hoffman Class Suit in S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gastro Health, LLC. The case is captioned as John Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gastro Health, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-23899-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles. The nature of suit states Diversity-Non-Motor Vehicle. Gastro Health is a medical group of physicians and APPs specializing in GI disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Chase Yagman, Esq. 60 SW 13th St. 2006 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 788-4065 E-mail: tyler@yagmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ian M. Ross, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 391-5218 E-mail: iross@sidley.com GENERAL MOTORS: Helms Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER HELMS, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-10783-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification and appointment of Class Counsel and Class Representatives. Specifically, the Plaintiffs propose certification of the following Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): 1. Florida Class, represented by Robert Krause certified for claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"): "All original purchasers who purchased new Class Vehicles in Florida from authorized GM dealers." 2. Tennessee Class, represented by Brian Lawson, certified for claims for the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"): "All original purchasers who purchased Class Vehicles in Tennessee from authorized GM dealers." 3. Washington Class, represented by Walter Helms, certified for claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"): "All original buyers who purchased Class Vehicles in Washington from authorized GM dealers." 4. West Virginia Class, represented by Michael Elijah Wilson, certified for claims under the West Virginia Consumer Protection Act ("WVCPA"): "All original buyers who purchased Class Vehicles in West Virginia from authorized GM dealers." The Class Vehicles are General Motors Model Year ("MY") 2019–2022 vehicles with 8L transmissions, specifically: the 2019–2022 Chevrolet Silverado and Colorado, and GMC Sierra and Canyon, manufactured after March 1, 2019. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rlEAvo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. Karina G. Puttieva, Esq. Laura Roberts, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com lroberts@cohenmilstein.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoff Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667)667-7056) E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com GENESETT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due July 22 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesett Corporation v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Case No. 1:23-cv-12276 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 3, 2023), the Hon. Judge Angel Kelley entered an order granting motion for extension of time scheduling order: -- Deadline to complete mediation: September 24, 2026 -- Class certification motion and Plaintiff's opening expert reports: July 22, 2026 -- Sun Life's class certification opposition, rebuttal expert reports, and opening expert reports on issues on which Sun Life bears the burden of proof: August 21, 2026 -- Plaintiff's class certification reply and Plaintiff's rebuttal and reply expert reports: September 11, 2026 -- Sun Life's reply expert reports on issues on which Sun Life bears the burden of proof: September 25, 2026 -- Completion of expert depositions and expert discovery: November 20, 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Sun Life provides financial planning, life insurance, health insurance, investments and more.[CC] GEODIS LOGISTICS: Duvall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as LORENZO DEVALL DUVALL II, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC, a Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2609551, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03278 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges causes of action for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. He seeks compensatory damages, including unpaid wages and unpaid premium wages, restitution, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, penalties, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. Geodis Logistics, LLC provides supply chain management solutions.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. Sutton T. McCann, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: trusche@mcguirewoods.com smccann@mcguirewoods.com GO RAW: Faces Free Class Suit Over Cat Food Nutritional Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- Cearra Free, individually and for all others similarly situated v. Go Raw LLC dba Steve's Real Food, Case No. 3:26-cv-03704-JO-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) is a class action addresses a serious breach of consumer trust and a life threatening nutritional defect in Defendant's product line. The Defendant's Quest cat food products are labeled and sold as "complete and balanced" diets formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials ("AAFCO") Cat Food Nutrient Profiles for All Life Stages. The consumers pay a price premium for Quest Cat Food specifically because of these representations. Quest products are priced significantly higher than conventional cat food products, with consumers paying approximately $100–$115 for a four-to-six week supply, based on the reasonable expectation that the product delivers superior, scientifically validated nutrition, says the suit. The Defendant manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells a line of premium raw cat food under the brand name Quest, marketed through its trade name Steve's Real Food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. Katherine Tuohy, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Katherine@ SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. Harrison Lynch, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com Harrison@ShayLegal.com GOLABS INC: Faces Castillo Suit Over GoTrax Products' Fake Sales ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOLABS, INC., Case No. 1:26-at-02572 (E.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) is a class action suit arising from the Defendant's fake sales of GoTrax products in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. GoLabs sells and markets GoTrax branded electric vehicle products, including eBikes and eScooters (GoTrax Products) online through its website, www.gotrax.com. On its website, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts from those regular prices. For example, the Defendant consistently advertises a constant stream of rotating promotions purportedly linked to specific holidays or events. The Defendant also attempts to add a sense of urgency by connecting its advertised sales with specific limited-time holidays or events, or with statements stating, for example, that the deals are "only here for a limited time," last "from now until" a certain date, or that deals "end on" a certain date. The promotions encourage consumers to "hurry and save big while [they] can," so that they don't miss the purportedly limited-time deals. For example: But in reality, the deals do not end when they are advertised to. Instead, they are simply replaced with a different, but substantially similar, new sale. Indeed, far from being time limited, the advertised discounts on Defendant's products are routinely available. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's products are routinely available for less than them. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discounts a customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited-time—quite the opposite, they are consistently available, alleges the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com GOLD STAR: Jones Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY L. JONES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. GOLD STAR METALS, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-04856 (S.D. Tex., June 18, 2026) contends that Gold Star's business operation includes a systematic plan to deprive their hourly employees of wages lawfully owed in various ways. According to the complaint, Gold Star uses Time Guardian payroll software to automatically deduct thirty minutes for lunch from every hourly employee's daily pay regardless of whether any lunch break was actually taken. The Defendant requires their employees, including Anthony Jones, to perform work before and after scheduled hours without compensation. Defendant manipulates time records through an asymmetric rounding policy that docks employees for tardiness but does not credit them for overtime stays. The Defendant fails to include non-discretionary production bonuses in the regular rate when calculating overtime compensation, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Jones is a former hourly Mechanical Supervisor who worked for Gold Star from February 2022 through January 2026 and was subjected to each of these unlawful practices. Mr. Jones brings this lawsuit against Gold Star to recover unpaid wages required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and to obtain collective action notice on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees who were subject to similar pay policies and procedures. Gold Star is a scrap metal recycling company in Channelview, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr. Josef F. Buenker THE BUENKER LAW FIRM Thomas H. Padgett, Jr. P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in May Suit Due Oct. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY MAY, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01314-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order regarding joint stipulation to modify case schedule; and modifying case schedule. The Parties have filed a joint stipulation to modify the case schedule. The Court continues the last day to file a motion for class certification to Oct. 9, 2026. All other dates remain as set. Google is an American multinational technology corporation focused on information technology, online advertising, search engine technology, email, cloud computing, software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=auSRSi at no extra charge.[CC] HARBOR PIPE: Renewed Arbitration Petition Denial in Rojas Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FLORENTINO ROJAS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HARBOR PIPE AND STEEL, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. E085339 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed the order denying Harbor's petition to compel arbitration. In January 2023, Rojas sued Harbor, asserting individual and class claims for wage-and-hour violations and unfair business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.). In February 2024, Harbor moved to compel arbitration of Rojas's individual claims and stay the class claims, relying on a November 8, 2017 arbitration agreement signed by Rojas that identified the contracting party as Harbor Pipe Refrigeration, Inc. Rojas opposed Harbor's petition, arguing that Harbor failed to show it was a party to the 2017 arbitration agreement, which named Harbor Pipe Refrigeration, Inc. as the employer. Harbor responded that the company name was a typographical error and also referenced a 2014 arbitration agreement, but did not submit that agreement to the court. The trial court denied the petition, finding no evidence that Harbor was a party to the 2017 agreement and no support for its typographical-error claim, while noting that the 2014 agreement had not been produced. Harbor did not appeal the ruling. About a month after its first petition was denied, Harbor filed a second petition to compel arbitration, this time relying on a July 21, 2014 arbitration agreement and seeking dismissal of the class claims. The agreement, contained in an employee handbook for Harbor Pipe & Steel Inc. and signed by Rojas, required employment-related disputes, except workers' compensation claims, to be resolved through binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association. In support of its second petition, Harbor submitted a declaration from Rosa Herron, its director of human resources. Herron stated that Rojas received the employee handbook when he began working for Harbor in July 2014, that his personnel file included the signed 2014 acknowledgment form, and that she recognized the signature on the form as Rojas's. Rojas opposed Harbor's second petition, arguing that the 2014 acknowledgment form did not establish a valid arbitration agreement because it did not identify the contracting parties, showed no agreement by Harbor, and was submitted without the rest of the employee handbook needed to determine whether the arbitration provision was contractual or merely informational. Alternatively, Rojas argued that, even if the document constituted an arbitration agreement, it was unconscionable because it was buried in the employee handbook, lacked mutuality, covered claims that could not legally be arbitrated, and allowed the arbitrator to require employees to share arbitration costs. At the hearing, the trial court questioned whether Harbor's second petition was effectively a motion for reconsideration under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 because it sought the same relief as the first petition. After supplemental briefing, Harbor argued that the petition was based on a different arbitration agreement and was therefore not subject to Section 1008, while Rojas contended that the petition relied on evidence Harbor already possessed when it filed its first petition and should be denied because Harbor failed to present any new facts, circumstances, or law. In a written ruling, the trial court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 applied to Harbor's second petition and denied it because Harbor failed to present new facts, circumstances, or law. The court found that Harbor knew of both the 2014 and 2017 arbitration agreements when it filed its first petition but chose to rely only on the 2017 agreement, and concluded that Section 1008 does not permit successive petitions based on evidence that could have been presented earlier. Harbor timely challenged the trial court's ruling by filing both an appeal and a petition for a writ of mandate. On appeal, Harbor argued that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 did not apply because its second petition relied on a different arbitration agreement than the first and therefore did not seek identical relief under Doe v. Westmont College. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It found that Harbor's reliance on Doe v. Westmont College misplaced because that case involved separate attorney fee motions seeking compensation for different work performed at different stages of the litigation. By contrast, Harbor's two petitions sought the same relief, compelling arbitration of Rojas's individual claims, making the second petition subject to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008. The Court of Appeal also rejected Harbor's argument that its second petition sought different relief because it requested dismissal, rather than a stay, of the class claims. It held that both petitions sought the same primary relief, compelling arbitration of Rojas's individual claims, making California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 applicable. The Court of Appeals further held that Harbor failed to satisfy Section 1008 because the 2014 acknowledgment form was already in its possession when it filed the first petition and therefore did not constitute new evidence. Because Harbor offered no new facts or persuasive explanation for failing to rely on the 2014 agreement earlier, the trial court properly denied the second petition. Lastly, the Court of Appeal held that Harbor cited no California authority exempting successive petitions to compel arbitration under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2 from the requirements of Section 1008. It noted that the California cases addressing both statutes treated second petitions to compel arbitration as renewed motions subject to Section 1008. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal rejected Harbor's arguments. Accordingly, it affirmed the November 15, 2024 order denying Harbor's second petition to compel arbitration and awarded Rojas his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/HK1Fmz2Wr. Buchalter, Jennifer M. Misetich -- jmisetich@buchalter.com -- Adam P. Smith -- apsmith@buchalter.com; Lobb & Plewe, Tim Plewe and Michael J. DeSantis for Defendant and Appellant. Yoon Law, Kenneth H. Yoon -- kyoon@yoonlaw.com -- and Stephanie E. Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. HARRISON, NY: Discovery Order Entered in 3086 Purchase Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as 3086 Purchase LLC, v. The Town/Village of Harrison et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-09917-JGLC-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Reznik entered a discovery order. All pre-trial applications submitted to the undersigned must comply with this Court’s Individual Practices. All discovery (including requests for admission and any applications to the Court regarding the conduct of discovery) must be initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all discovery. Discovery motions – that is, any dispute arising under Rules 26 through 37 or Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and Section 2A of the Court's Individual Practices. Any request for an adjournment of a court proceeding or for an extension of time for a deadline must be made as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to the party making the application and must be made in accordance with Section 1E of the Court’s Individual Practices. The Court holds regular Status Conferences at which counsel should be prepared to discuss the status of discovery, the potential for settlement, and any other issues to be resolved. Harrison is a suburb of New York City, located approximately 11 miles northeast of Manhatta. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FNa7KQ at no extra charge.[CC] HITACHI RAIL: Turgut Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOLKAN TURGUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HITACHI RAIL STS USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10660-AK (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal: -- the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and -- the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Included within the exhibits cited by the Plaintiff in support of his class certification motion, cross-motion for summary judgment, and opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment are documents that (a) have been or will be designated by the Plaintiff and the Defendant as "Confidential Information" or "Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order ("Confidentiality Order"), (b) (i) are confidential and/or sensitive information about the Plaintiff and the Defendant's employees and business operations. Included within the exhibits cited by the Defendant in support of its forthcoming summary judgment motion and opposition to the plaintiff's class certification motion and crossmotion for summary judgment will be documents designated by Defendant and third parties Charles Schwab, Automatic Data Processing ("ADP"), Citizens Bank, TD Bank, and Wells Fargo as "Confidential Information" or "Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, and those documents contain confidential and/or sensitive information about Defendant's, Schwab's, ADP's, Citizen Bank's, TD Bank's, and Wells Fargo's employees, customers, and/or business operations. Hitachi manufactures products and systems that signal, automate, and manage rail-based traffic for freight, passenger, and metropolitan rail transit. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ozBWWi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilir Kavaja, Esq. KAVAJA LAW, P.C. 92 State Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 515-5545 E-mail: ilir@kavajalaw.com - and - Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq. William E. Petrone, Esq. BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C. 24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 Telephone: (617) 577-8800 E-mail: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com wpetrone@bennettandbelfort.com The Defendant is represented by: Sudip Kundu, Esq. Grace E. Schmidt, Esq. DTO Law 307 5th Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 995-5400 Facsimile: (213) 335-7802 E-mail: skundu@dtolaw.com gschmidt@dtolaw.com HITACHI RAIL: Turgut Suit Seeks to Certify Late Pay Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOLKAN TURGUT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HITACHI RAIL STS USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10660-AK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the Late Pay Class defined as: "All Massachusetts employees of Defendant Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc. who were paid wages more than six days after the close of a biweekly pay period at any time between Feb. 17, 2021, and March 7, 2024." -– appointing Volkan Turgut as class representative, and -- appointing Kavaja Law, P.C. and Bennett & Belfort, P.C. as class counsel. Accordingly, Hitachi Rail maintained a single, uniform payroll practice -- processing all Massachusetts employee wages through one ADP company code, under one Saturday-to-Friday pay period, with a Friday pay date set seven days after the close of each pay period -- that the Court has already held violates the Massachusetts Wage Act. That uniform practice applied identically to 43 Massachusetts employees across 76 regular biweekly pay periods, giving rise to 1,667 separate employee-pay-period violations. Hitachi manufactures products and systems that signal, automate, and manage rail-based traffic for freight, passenger, and metropolitan rail transit. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xcsUUZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilir Kavaja, Esq. KAVAJA LAW, P.C. 92 State Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 515-5545 E-mail: ilir@kavajalaw.com - and - Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq. BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C. 24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 Telephone: (617) 577-8800 E-mail: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com HUNTER ASSOCIATES: 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 Hunter Associates 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 Hunter Associates data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Hunter Associates Security Incident: What Happened? Hunter Associates, a wealth management firm with offices in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has reported a data breach involving unauthorized access to a third-party vendor's cloud environment. A sample notification letter states that Hunter Associates learned on April 29, 2026 of the unnamed third party's data breach, believed to have occurred on April 22 of the same year. On May 15, the third-party vendor notified Hunter Associates that it could not confirm whether the firm's data was present in the affected environment; however, Hunter Associates undertook a review of the potentially affected files and found they contained names, Social Security numbers, and investment account numbers. Hunter Associates' own systems were not compromised in the incident. What You Can Do After the Hunter Associates Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Hunter Associates data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Hunter Associates to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] HYATT CORPORATION: Hasty Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY J. HASTY, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION dba HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02662-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court as follows: 1. For an order granting certification of the following class and subclasses: A general class: "All current and former employees within the State of California who, at any time from four years prior to filing this lawsuit ("Class Period"), are or were employed as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees by the Defendant." Subclass 1 -- The Rounding Class: "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period whom the Defendant paid based on rounded time rather than actual hours worked." Subclass 2 -- Off-the-Clock Class: "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period whom the Defendant failed to pay for all hours under the Defendant's control." Subclass 3 -- The Meal Period Class: "All current and former hourly-paid, nonexempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period who worked at least one shift of more than five hours at any time during the Class Period." Subclass 4 -- Unlawful Deduction Subclass: "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period whose pay records reflect a negative amount under an item identified as "OTHER (OT YES)." Subclass 5 -- Inaccurate Wage Statement Subclass: "All members of any of the above classes who received a wage statement from Defendant on or after Feb. 6, 2024." 2. For an order appointing Plaintiff Bradley J. Hasty as the class representative; 3. For an order appointing Natalie Haritoonian and Andrea A. Amaya Silva of D.Law, Inc., as class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and 4. For an order requiring Defendant Hyatt Corporation, dba Hyatt Regency San Francisco, to provide to the Plaintiff Bradley J. Hasty a list of all class members, including their names, social security numbers, last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last known addresses for class notice purposes, within 30 days following this Court’s order granting class certification. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requests that the Court exercise its broad discretion and certify narrower or broader classes that the Court deems appropriate. Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6A7bMH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Andrea A. Amaya Silva, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: n.haritoonian@d.law a.amaya@d.law HYUNDAI MOTOR: Pretrial and Trial Dates in Hhageman Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, Richard Price, Timothy Sage, Lisa Page, David Kostka, Mark Schofield, Louella Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting the joint stipulation to vacate pretrial and trial dates pending resolution of appellate proceedings and class certification motion. The remaining pretrial and trial deadlines in the Hageman and Bal actions, including the previously established dates of July 21, 2026, for the final pretrial conference, and Aug. 11, 2026, for the start of trial, are vacated. Following the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the consolidated appeals from this Court's orders denying the Defendant's motions to compel arbitration and this Court's resolution of the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs, the Parties will file a joint stipulation proposing a schedule for any additional motions for class certification and/or summary judgment (and any limited discovery such motions may require); first and second rounds of trial filings; the final pretrial conference; and the start of trial in these actions. The Defendant is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P8qIaa at no extra charge.[CC] I.A.C. INC: Moss Alleges Failure to Protect Clients' Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEANE MOSS and SHERRY MCCARGO RIDDICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I.A.C., INC. d/b/a INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00935 (D. Conn., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around February 24, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. I.A.C., Inc., doing business as Industrial Acceptance Corporation, is a credit company based in New Haven, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jlee@tomorrowlaw.com IDAHO: Edney Wins Provisional Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILIE JACKSON-EDNEY, et al., v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00261-AKB (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Brailsford entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and provisional class certification is granted. a. The Court enjoins enforcement of H.B. 752 as against all transgender people who seek to use a restroom in a government-owned building or place of public accommodation in Idaho consistent with their gender identity wherever: (1) the covered restroom designated for use by sex is a single-user facility; or (2) when a single-user restroom is not available because no-single user restroom exists on the same floor as the multi-user facilities or all single-user restrooms on the same floor as the multi-user facilities are occupied or not in service. b. The bond requirement imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. a. The Court certifies the proposed class of all transgender people who seek to use a restroom in a government-owned building or place of public accommodation in Idaho consistent with their gender identity. b. The Court enjoins enforcement of H.B. 752 as against the class while this lawsuit is pending. c. The Court appoints counsel for the named Plaintiffs as counsel for the class. 3. The Plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Peter Poe's Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonym is granted. The Plaintiffs have shown an injury to themselves that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have standing to seek a preliminary injunction against CP Defendants. The Plaintiffs' proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because the Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Idaho is a northwestern U.S. state known for mountainous landscapes, and vast swaths of protected wilderness and outdoor recreation areas. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4UDgDW at no extra charge.[CC] IHG MANAGEMENT: Higareda Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- GRISELDA HIGAREDA, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. IHG MANAGEMENT MARYLAND LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company; NTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV17800 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, civil penalties, and related relief pursuant to the the Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have: -- failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; -- failed to provide them with rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; -- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and -- failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. As a result of performing off-the-clock work that was directed, permitted, or otherwise encouraged by the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees should have been paid for this time. Instead, the Defendants only paid Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees based on the time they were clocked in for their shifts and did not pay Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for any of the time spent working off-the-clock, the suit says. IHG operates as a hotel and motel management company, overseeing various upscale properties and distinct locations under the broader IHG umbrella, such as the Crowne Plaza and InterContinental brands.[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 INT'L YACHT: Denial of YATCO's Arbitration Bid in Ya Mon Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, YA MON EXPEDITIONS, LLC, KIP LAMAR SNELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, MAGNA CHARTER, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL YACHT BROKERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants, YATCO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-10140 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of YATCO's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs—companies and individuals who sold used yachts through brokers between approximately 2020 and 2023—filed four class action lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida alleging antitrust violations against various participants in the used yacht resale market. The district court consolidated the cases, and in June 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a single consolidated complaint. The Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act against three groups of defendants involved in the used yacht resale market: yacht brokerage firms representing buyers and sellers, yacht broker associations that set industry standards, and companies operating multiple listing services (MLS) that list yachts for sale. YATCO, a defendant in the appeal, is an MLS operator. The complaint alleged that, in typical transactions, sellers hire brokers to list yachts on MLS platforms and complete sales, while buyers also use brokers to assist with purchases. Under the alleged industry practice, the seller pays both brokers' commissions, usually totaling about 10% of the sale price, split evenly between the buyer and seller brokers. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to fix and inflate broker commissions in the used yacht market, specifically the commission paid to buyer brokers. They claimed that broker associations used rulemaking to require cooperation between competing brokers, including pre-negotiating shared commission splits even when representing opposing parties. They further alleged that MLS companies, controlled by the broker associations, only accepted yacht listings from professional brokers and only if the seller agreed to pay the buyer broker's commission. The Plaintiffs also claimed brokerage firms participated in these associations to adopt and enforce the commission rules and required their brokers to follow them in practice. Overall, the Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants jointly controlled the market and forced sellers to use brokers and pay inflated buyer-broker commissions as a result of the alleged conspiracy. The Plaintiffs brought two antitrust claims under the Sherman Act: (1) conspiracy to fix buyer-broker commissions, and (2) a concerted refusal to deal with used yacht sellers who were not represented by brokers. They asserted these claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of individuals and entities who, since February 2020, sold used yachts through brokers, listed those yachts on the Defendants' MLS platforms, and paid broker commissions in connection with those sales. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages. In response, YATCO moved to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims against it under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). It argued that the Plaintiffs were bound by an arbitration clause in its Software as a Service (SaaS) Subscription Agreement, which all users of its MLS website were required to accept. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that they were not bound by the SaaS agreement because they were not parties to it. They also contended that neither agency nor estoppel principles applied to enforce the agreement against them. In addition, they argued that YATCO failed to meet its burden of proving a valid written arbitration agreement, asserting that its position relied on speculation rather than competent evidence. The district court denied YATCO's motion to compel arbitration. It expressed skepticism about YATCO's claim that the Plaintiffs' brokers had executed the SaaS agreement but held that even if they had, the Plaintiffs were not bound by its arbitration clause. The court found no agency relationship between the Plaintiffs and their brokers because the SaaS agreement stated it was for the sole benefit of the signatories and prohibited assignment of rights. It also noted that YATCO failed to show the brokers acted on the Plaintiffs' behalf when signing the agreement. The court further held that equitable estoppel did not apply because the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims did not arise from or rely on the SaaS agreement, which governed use of YATCO's services rather than the alleged fee-related antitrust conduct. YATCO filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. It argued that the Plaintiffs were bound by the SaaS agreement under agency and equitable estoppel principles, even though they were not signatories to the agreement. The Plaintiffs responded that they were not required to arbitrate because they never agreed to arbitrate their claims with YATCO and were not bound by the SaaS agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of YATCO's motion to compel arbitration. It agreed with the Plaintiffs that YATCO failed to meet its threshold burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. It held that YATCO's arbitration theory rested on speculation, particularly its assumption that the Plaintiffs' brokers had listed yachts on its MLS website and therefore must have executed the SaaS agreement on the Plaintiffs' behalf. Because YATCO offered no evidence to support this assumption, it did not establish the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement under Florida law. The Eleventh Circuit also rejected YATCO's argument that the Plaintiffs were bound to arbitrate under agency principles. It found no evidence that the Plaintiffs themselves used YATCO's MLS platform or had direct knowledge of the SaaS agreement simply because their brokers may have used the service on their behalf. It further held that equitable estoppel did not apply because the SaaS agreement governed only brokers' use of YATCO's MLS platform and had no direct connection to the alleged antitrust conspiracy. It did not address broker commissions or require that sellers be represented by brokers to list yachts—core issues in the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate their claims against YATCO. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/h8SzTHOon INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Gene Therapy Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Marcos Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., John Leonard, Laura Sepp-Lorenzino, David Lebwohl, and Edward J. Dulac, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-10353-DJC (D. Mass.), Chief Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and allowed in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike certain exhibits. Plaintiffs alleged that Intellia and its officers made false and misleading statements between January 4, 2024 and January 8, 2025 regarding the timeline for clinical trials of NTLA-3001, a gene-insertion candidate for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, as well as the drug's preclinical nonhuman primate data and its prioritization within Intellia's pipeline. Plaintiffs relied on six confidential witnesses, including a former Study Support Technician who reported that 2023 preclinical studies showed no efficacy and that a DEA license to test the drug lapsed. Following Intellia's January 9, 2025 announcement that it was discontinuing NTLA-3001 to focus on other late-stage programs, the company's stock price fell approximately 15 percent. On the motion to strike, the Court allowed consideration of a chart cataloguing alleged misstatements and a 2024 SEC filing falling within the class period, but struck two SEC filings predating the class period, a PowerPoint presentation not relied upon in the complaint, and a risk-disclosure compilation that improperly introduced new legal arguments and relied on stricken exhibits. Turning to the merits, the Court held that statements describing NTLA-3001 as a "priority" or part of the company's innovation efforts were inactionable puffery, but found that statements that the company was "on track" to dose patients in 2024 were factual rather than mere opinion. Even so, Plaintiffs failed to plead these statements were materially false, since allegations about ceased mouse studies, an expired license, and reduced research spending did not establish that Intellia did not anticipate beginning trials in 2024. Many of these statements were further protected by the PSLRA safe harbor for forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. The Court found that statements regarding the company's 2023 nonhuman primate data were actionable and misleading, since the complaint adequately alleged that 2023 outsourced primate studies showed no editing and no efficacy, information not disclosed when the company continued touting prior positive results. Despite finding this category of statements actionable, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter. The confidential witnesses did not allege that any Defendant possessed or was told of the negative 2023 study results, and generalized allegations about town hall discussions and executive reviews lacked particularity. The Court also rejected Plaintiffs' motive-and-opportunity theory, noting that Intellia had substantial cash reserves and disclosed the discontinuation of NTLA-3001 promptly, undermining any inference of intent to deceive. A core operations theory likewise failed for lack of additional indicia of scienter. Weighing competing inferences under Tellabs, the Court concluded that the more compelling inference was that Defendants believed in good faith that the drug remained on track, given the company's regulatory submissions, funding, and internal updates. Because Plaintiffs failed to allege a corrective disclosure separate from the materialization of a previously disclosed risk, the Court also found Plaintiffs failed to establish loss causation. As Plaintiffs did not plead a primary violation under Section 10(b), their derivative Section 20(a) claim against the individual Defendants also failed. Accordingly, the Court allowed Defendants' motion to dismiss in full. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zRIWOl from PacerMonitor.com INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Overton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ TUWANNA OVERTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-06735 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) contends that cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII—rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. On May 1, 2026, the cybercriminal group named Shiny Hunters announced it has stolen over a million data files from Inter-Con. In other words, Inter-Con had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. The Data Breach has impacted thousands of current and former employees. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' PII, says the suit. The Defendant is a multinational private security company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 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 JADE NUTRITION: James Sues Over Automatic Paid Subscription Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------- DALLAS JAMES v. JADE NUTRITION LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.JADENUTRITION.COM, Case No. 26STCV17913 (Cal. Super., June 3, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and others similarly situated arising after the Plaintiff purchased an automatically renewing paid subscription at website, www.jadenutrition.com which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. 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 by failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law and 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. Jade Nutrition is a Miami-based business known for two primary entities: a namesake brand developing dietary and nutritional energy supplements, and a telehealth private practice—Jade-ED Nutrition, LLC—specializing in eating disorders and intuitive eating.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com JMJ FINANCIAL: Bradford Sues Over Denied Credit Application ----------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JMJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-04991 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The Plaintiff applied for a home equity line of credit from Defendant. On April 14, 2026, the Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying Plaintiff's credit application. The Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with the specific information as to why his application for credit was incomplete deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on. As a result, Plaintiff was not able to correct the alleged deficiency that led to the credit denial, says the suit. The Plaintiff is an African-American consumer and a natural person, over 18-years-of age, residing in Houston, Texas. The Defendant is an online lender that provides loans to consumers across the United Defendant maintains its principal place Aliso Viejo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com JONES & CO: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE DIXON and JAIME GAONA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00284-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to file under seal their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and exhibits thereto (collectively, the "Confidential Materials"). The Confidential Materials contain non-public, competitively sensitive information concerning the Defendants' internal programs, compensation structures, and internal business operations. Public disclosure of this information would risk competitive harm to the Defendants and unnecessary disclosure of private information. The Defendants have an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of their internal documents from competitors. The Defendants will provide narrowly tailored redactions to such materials consistent with the Court's procedures and Order at Dkt. 182 The Defendant is a North American financial services firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oGqQxd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. Michael J. Kuhn, Esq. Philip A. Cantwell, Esq. Lisa Bertain, Esq. Adam J. Simon, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 Facsimile: (314) 863-2111 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com mkuhn@dowdbennett.com pcantwell@dowdbennett.com lbertain@dowdbennett.com asimon@dowdbennett.com - and - Gregg M. Lemley, Esq. Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Liz S. Washko, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 650 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 802-3935 E-mail: gregg.lemley@ogletree.com patrick.hulla@ogletree.com liz.washko@ogletree.com - and - Felicia A. Davis, Esq. Carson H. Sullivan, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 E-mail: feliciadavis@paulhastings.com carsonsullivan@paulhastings.com JUSTFAB LLC: Williams Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARI WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUSTFAB, LLC and TFG HOLDING, INC., dba JustFab, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06427 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, money had and received, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and contract, and declaratory relief. The case arises from JustFab's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of JustFab systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that JustFab is obligated to return to her and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. JustFab, LLC is a retail apparel and fashion company headquartered in El Segundo, California. TFG Holding, Inc., doing business as JustFab, is a retail apparel and fashion company headquartered in El Segundo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 Email: jdennett@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com KEURIG GREEN: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Marketing Emails --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Malika Bennett filed a class action lawsuit against Keurig Green Mountain Inc. Why: Bennett alleges Keurig sends marketing emails with false deadline subject lines to pressure consumers into purchases. Where: The Keurig class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state court. How to get help: If you received multiple misleading marketing emails from the same company, you may qualify to join a class action investigation. A new class action lawsuit accuses the coffee products company Keurig Green Mountain of running a deceptive email marketing scheme that manipulates Washington consumers into making rushed purchasing decisions. Plaintiff Malika Bennett alleges Keurig Green Mountain systematically sends promotional emails with subject lines claiming sales are ending -- only to extend or repeat the same offers days later, proving the deadlines were false. Bennett claims the deceptive email marketing practice violates Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), which prohibits sending commercial emails to Washington residents that contain false or misleading information in the subject line. The Keurig class action lawsuit alleges the company's emails cause direct harm to consumers by wasting their time, flooding their inboxes with false notifications and steering them away from better deals they would have found had they not been pressured to buy immediately. Bennett wants to represent a class of all Washington citizens who received any of the misleading emails identified in the complaint during the class period. Lawsuit: Keurig's deceptive email marketing lasted for years The Keurig class action lawsuit documents alleged deceptive email subject lines spanning multiple product categories, from brewing machines to K-Cup pods to beverages, between 2022 and 2025. Bennett claims Keurig sent emails with subject lines such as "LAST DAY," "TODAY ONLY," "HOURS LEFT" and "ENDS TONIGHT," only to follow up the next day or within days announcing that the same promotion had been extended or relaunched at the same or lower price. The complaint alleges Keurig sent marketing emails at an average rate of approximately 687.5 per year, or 57 per month, during 2024 and 2025, and that the company used Salesforce Marketing Cloud in a way that gave it knowledge that recipients were Washington residents. Bennett herself claims she received at least six of the identified false or misleading emails between Nov. 5 and Dec. 5, 2025, according to the complaint. Bennett demands a jury trial and seeks class certification along with a permanent injunction barring Keurig from sending false or misleading email subject lines. She also seeks damages of $500 per violation, trebled under Washington's Consumer Protection Act. In related news, Keurig Dr Pepper is facing class action allegations it falsely advertises its K-Cup pods as recyclable despite the fact that most consumers are unable to recycle them. Bennett 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 Keurig class action lawsuit is Bennett v. Keurig Green Mountain Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01036, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King. [GN] KG MINING: All Case Deadlines in Loehr Stayed Until Oct. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHE LOEHR, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. KG MINING (BALD MOUNTAIN) INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00190-CLB (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting joint stipulation to stay, toll, and mediate. The Court entered an order as follows: A. Staying all case deadlines and proceedings for the duration of the Stay Period, until Oct. 9, 2026; B. Tolling the FLSA statute of limitations for the FLSA Collective Members from June 11, 2026 until five (5) business days after one of the following occurs: an impasse is declared by the mediator, the Stay Period requested herein expires, or either Party provides notice (via email or letter) to the other of an impasse, whichever is earlier; C. Requiring that, within ten (10) days after the Stay Period expires or is earlier terminated, the Parties shall file a Joint Status Report to apprise the Court of the status of resolution, or, in the alternative, shall file a Proposed Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order to govern the remainder of this case. The Plaintiff filed this putative class and collective action on April 9, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA and Nevada law, including claims relating to pre-shift/post-shift work, donning/doffing, timekeeping, and regular-rate overtime. The Defendant is a gold mine in northern Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q3tRMP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lonnie Giamela, Esq. Joel Moon, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Ste. 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4454 - and - Emily Hobbs, Esq. Dora V. Lane, Esq. ASCENT LAW, P.C. 110 16th Street, Ste. 1460 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 933-0765 KIA AMERICA: Faces Brenman Class Action Suit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc. The case is captioned as Marc Brenman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01428-DFM (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Mag. Judge Douglas F. McCormick. The nature of suit state Tort Product Liability demanding $5,000,000 in damages. Kia America provides sports sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Stiner, Esq. Lisa M. Cintron, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 2600 West Olive Avenue Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com lcintron@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Carter Greenbaum, Esq. GREENBAUM OLBRANTZ LLP 160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 735-9741 E-mail: carter@greenbaumolbrantz.com KIDS FIRST: Mack Sues Over Illegal Procurement of Consumer Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIDS FIRST SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06858 (D.N.J., June 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) adhere to the FCRA's disclosure requirements in procuring the consumer reports of the Plaintiff and other consumers for employment purposes; (ii) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of the Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (iii) provide copies of consumer reports to the Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iv) certify that the Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing the Plaintiff and other consumers. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practices, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Kids First Services Inc. is a children's therapy and behavioral health sciences company based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Payne, IV, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105, PMB #161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 Facsimile: (646) 417-4967 Email: wpayne@sirillp.com - and - Ivana Lozo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (929) 303-7675 Email: ilozo@sirillp.com KNOWBE4 INC: Seeks Judgment on the Pleadings in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because Plaintiffs here were members of the certified Delaware class, and because Chancellor McCormick’s Order is entitled to full faith and credit in this Court, Plaintiffs are barred from relitigating the same issues here. Accordingly, they cannot prevail on their claims, and the Court should grant judgment on the pleadings. The doctrine of collateral estoppel "provides repose by preventing the relitigation of an issue previously decided." It also "conserves judicial resources." Both purposes are served by granting the relief sought here. The Plaintiffs filed this action to piggyback on the Delaware case. Now that Chancellor McCormick has conclusively resolved— in Defendants' favor—the issues that are central to Plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing, the Plaintiffs can no longer prevail on their claims. The Court should grant judgment on the pleadings All four elements of collateral estoppel are met here. Nothing in the Chancery Court record suggests the Delaware plaintiffs were deprived of any opportunity to develop their arguments or fully brief the contested issues. Immediately after Plaintiffs filed this case, the Delaware plaintiffs moved to certify a nonopt-out class of all record and beneficial holders of KnowBe4, Inc. who received $24.90 per share in cash in exchange for their Company shares on Feb. 1, 2023. They sought "prompt" certification specifically "to protect stockholders from the risks posed by" this Action, where Plaintiffs relied "exclusively on facts and details gleaned from unsealed complaints filed in [Delaware]." Chancellor McCormick granted the motion and certified the class. The Plaintiffs here are members of that class. They did not oppose certification or seek exclusion. KnowBe4 is an integrated platform for security awareness training combined with simulated phishing attacks. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P8PL2O at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Adam M. Schachter, Esq. Joan Silverstein, Esq. GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 728-0950 E-mail: aschachter@gsgpa.com jsilverstein@gsgpa.com - and - Koji Fukumura, Esq. Peter Adams, Esq. Craig TenBroeck, Esq. COOLEY LLP 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com padams@cooley.com ctenbroeck@cooley.com - and - Martin B. Goldberg, Esq. Benjamin R. Shiekman, Esq. LASHGOLDBERG 100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347-4040 E-mail: mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com bshiekman@lashgoldberg.com - and - Colleen Smith, Esq. Jordan Cook, Esq. J. Christian Word, Esq. Stephen Nasko, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 523-5400 E-mail: colleen.smith@lw.com jordan.cook@lw.com christian.word@lw.com stephen.nasko@lw.com - and - David A. Nabors, Esq. Samuel G. Williamson, Esq. Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Courtney C. Whang, Esq. Marielle Paloma Greenblatt QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 2601 S Bayshore Drive, Suite 1550 Miami, FL 33133-5417 Telephone: (305) 402-4880 E-mail: samwilliamson@quinnemanuel.com davidnabors@quinnemanuel.com andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com courtneywhang@quinnemanuel.com mariellegreenblatt@quinnemanuel.com - and - Michael Holecek, Esq. Brian M. Lutz, Esq. Colin Davis, Esq. Jeff Lombard, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 161 NW 6th Street, Suite 1010 Miami, FL 33136 Telephone: (213) 229-7018 E-mail: MHolecek@gibsondunn.com LETAVIS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ping Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CODY PING; KEYVON PHILLIPS; and ZACHARY TARANTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LETAVIS ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-12093-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 23, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as carwash attendants. Letavis Enterprises, Inc., operating as Fast Eddie's Car Wash & Oil Change, is a family-owned Michigan business operating since 1977. They provide car washes, oil changes, preventative maintenance, and auto detailing across 17 locations in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St., Ste. 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (844) 487-9489 Email: noah@hurwitzlaw.com - - and - Emily K. Tyler, Esq. EMILY TYLER LAW PLLC 5566 Creekview Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Telephone: (855) 401-6110 Email: Emily@EmilyTylerLaw.com LEVI STRAUSS: Faces Iglesias Suit Over Tariff-Related Overcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Case No. 3:26-cv-06100 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) arises from Levi's retention of windfall profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of the IEEPA. Those tariffs dramatically increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. Major U.S. importers -- including Levi -- responded by increasing prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of these tariffs. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices for consumer goods reflecting the economic burden of those tariffs. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the IEEPA-based tariffs were unlawful. As a consequence of that decision, importers who paid those tariffs -- including Levi -- became entitled to refunds of the duties they previously paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The economic reality of the tariff regime, however, is that importers like Levi did not ultimately bear all the costs of the tariffs. Instead, the importers passed the elevated costs on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. Levi therefore collected the tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing, while having the ability to seek refunds of the same tariff payments from the federal government. Unless restrained by the Court, Levi stands to recover the same tariff payments twice -- once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds. Levi has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related overcharges to the consumers who actually paid them, says the suit. The lawsuit seeks to prevent that unjust result. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Levi during the tariff period and who paid inflated prices reflecting Levi's pass through of unlawful tariffs. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of those tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Operating since the 1850s, Levi is one of the oldest and best-known apparel companies in the United States. Levi manufactures, markets, and sells a variety of apparel for men, women, and kids including but not limited to jeans, shorts, shirts, overalls, sweatshirts, dresses, and skirts. Levi sells its products to consumers through retailers that are located throughout the United States, in Levi's brand stores, and online through retailers and its own website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 333 University Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 823.6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Gary M. Klinger, Esq. John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com gklinger@milberg.com jnelson@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@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 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ward Wins Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WARD, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526-BEM (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting Ward's motion to certify the class. PVR Class: "All persons in the United States or its territories (1) to whom Liberty Mutual placed, or caused to be placed, one or more call; (2) between March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020; (3) to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service; (4) where Drips'[s] records indicate a prerecorded message played; and (5) the person's phone number appears on the AWLI Spreadsheet"; and NDNC Class: "All persons in the United States or its territories who (1) received more than one call in a 12-month period; (2) by or on behalf of Liberty Mutual; (3) on a telephone number that appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days at the time of the calls, (4) between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020; and (5) the person's phone number appears on the AWLI Spreadsheet." Considering the Rule 23(b)(3) factors, the Court finds that Ward has sufficiently shown that a class action is a superior method for resolving the instant controversy. On March 1, 2024, Ward brought this suit alleging that Liberty Mutual violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") by impermissibly placing calls utilizing a PRV and by placing calls and sending text messages to residential telephone numbers registered on the NDNCR. Liberty Mutual is a nationwide insurance company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nIABD9 at no extra charge.[CC] LIMETREE BAY: Boynes Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD BOYNES, et al., v. LIMETREE BAY VENTURES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00253-MAK-GAT (D.V.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the proposed Class, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as follows: "All persons or entities who (a) owned or rented property in the Affected Geographic Area of St. Croix on or after Feb. 3, 2021; or who (b) resided in, worked in, owned or operated a business in, or were present in the Affected Geographic Area during the time period from Feb. 3, 2021 to May 26, 2021"; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) appointing Kerry Miller of Miller Thibodeaux Dysart Veith & Paschal, LLC, Daniel Charest of Burns Charest LLP, and Shanon J. Carson of Berger Montague PC as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from the catastrophic restart of the Limetree Bay Refinery on St. Croix (the "Refinery"), which caused a series of toxic releases impacting the Affected Geographic Area. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DiSKii at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel H. Charest., Esq. Martin D. Barrie, Esq. Quinn M. Burns, Esq. Anna Katherine Benedict, Esq. Korey A. Nelson, Esq. H. Rick Yelton, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 5800 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com mbarrie@burnscharest.com qburns@burnscharest.com abenedict@burnscharest.com knelson@burnscharest.com ryelton@burnscharest.com - and - Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq. Rebekka C. Veith, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. Carly Jonakin McCleskey, Esq. MILLER, THIBODEAUX, DYSART, VEITH & PASCHAL, LLP 643 Magazine Street, Suite 405 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 977-9150 E-mail: kmiller@mtdvp.com pthibodeaux@mtdvp.com rveith@mtdvp.com hpaschal@mtdvp.com cmccleskey@mtdvp.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq. John Kerrigan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net jkerrigan@bm.net - and - Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Rhea R. Lawrence, Esq. 56 King Street, Third Floor, Christiansted St. Croix, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 778-8855 E-mail: lee@rohnlaw.com rhea@rohnlaw.com - and - John K. Dema, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN K. DEMA, PC 1236 Strand Street, Suite 103 Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 773-6142 E-mail: jdema@demalaw.com - and - Hugh Lambert, Esq. J. Christopher Zainey, Esq. Brian Mersman, Esq. LAMBERT ZAINEY SMITH & SOSO, APLC 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-1750 Facsimile: (504) 529-2931 E-mail: hlambert@lambertainey.com czainey@lambertzainey.com bmersman@lambertzainey.com - and - Vincent Colianni, II, Esq. Marina Leonard, Esq. COLIANNI & LEONARD LLC 2120 Company Street Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 719-1766 E-mail: vinny@colianni.com vince@colianni.com marina@colianni.com - and - C. Jacob Gower, Esq. GOWER LEGAL LLC 1919 Pine Street New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (337) 298-9734 E-mail: jacob@gowerlegal.com - and - Jennifer Jones, Esq. 9003 Havensight Mall, Ste. 319 St. Thomas, V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-7386 E-mail: jjones@vienvironmentallaw.com LIMETREE BAY: Boynes Seeks to Temporarily File Memo Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD BOYNES, et al., v. LIMETREE BAY VENTURES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00253-MAK-GAT (D.V.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to temporarily file under seal, for a period not to exceed 21 days, a complete and unredacted version of the Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of motion for class certification and exhibits thereto. The Plaintiffs further move that the Defendants, and any other interested designating party, have those 21 days to file with the Court a motion justifying any ongoing sealing or redactions on the public docket (failing which, the Plaintiffs may publicly refile the Memorandum and exhibits, and the temporary seal shall lapse). The relief requested in this Motion is entirely consistent with the terms of the Confidentiality Order agreed to by the parties and entered by the Court, which contains certain provisions with respect to the use of "Protected Information" in Court filings, including provisions that enable the Plaintiffs to temporarily file their Memorandum under seal and which grant the Defendants and any other party that designated purported Protected Information used in the Memorandum with 21 days to justify the ongoing sealing or redaction of such information. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=endVVN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel H. Charest., Esq. Martin D. Barrie, Esq. Quinn M. Burns, Esq. Anna Katherine Benedict, Esq. Korey A. Nelson, Esq. H. Rick Yelton, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 5800 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com mbarrie@burnscharest.com qburns@burnscharest.com abenedict@burnscharest.com knelson@burnscharest.com ryelton@burnscharest.com - and - Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq. Rebekka C. Veith, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. Carly Jonakin McCleskey, Esq. MILLER, THIBODEAUX, DYSART, VEITH & PASCHAL, LLP 643 Magazine Street, Suite 405 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 977-9150 E-mail: kmiller@mtdvp.com pthibodeaux@mtdvp.com rveith@mtdvp.com hpaschal@mtdvp.com cmccleskey@mtdvp.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq. John Kerrigan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net jkerrigan@bm.net - and - Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Rhea R. Lawrence, Esq. 56 King Street, Third Floor, Christiansted St. Croix, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 778-8855 E-mail: lee@rohnlaw.com rhea@rohnlaw.com - and - John K. Dema, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN K. DEMA, PC 1236 Strand Street, Suite 103 Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 773-6142 E-mail: jdema@demalaw.com - and - Hugh Lambert, Esq. J. Christopher Zainey, Esq. Brian Mersman, Esq. LAMBERT ZAINEY SMITH & SOSO, APLC 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-1750 Facsimile: (504) 529-2931 E-mail: hlambert@lambertainey.com czainey@lambertzainey.com bmersman@lambertzainey.com - and - Vincent Colianni, II, Esq. Marina Leonard, Esq. COLIANNI & LEONARD LLC 2120 Company Street Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 719-1766 E-mail: vinny@colianni.com vince@colianni.com marina@colianni.com - and - C. Jacob Gower, Esq. GOWER LEGAL LLC 1919 Pine Street New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (337) 298-9734 E-mail: jacob@gowerlegal.com - and - Jennifer Jones, Esq. 9003 Havensight Mall, Ste. 319 St. Thomas, V.I. 00802 Telephone: (340) 779-7386 E-mail: jjones@vienvironmentallaw.com LITHIA MOTORS: Avagian Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- HOVANNES AVAGIAN, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC., an Oregon Stock Corporation; LITHIA MOTORS SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., an Oregon Stock Corporation; VAN NUYS-L, INC., a California Stock Corporation; VAN NUYS-H, INC., a California Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV17770 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, civil penalties, and related relief pursuant to the the Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have: -- failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; -- failed to provide them with rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; -- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and -- failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. As a result of performing off-the-clock work that was directed, permitted, or otherwise encouraged by the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees should have been paid for this time. Instead, the Defendants only paid Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees based on the time they were clocked in for their shifts and did not pay Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for any of the time spent working off-the-clock, the suit says. Lithia is an American nationwide automotive dealership group headquartered in Medford, Oregon.[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 LOKUM & TERRACOTTA: Kaba Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------- MEHMET KABA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LOKUM & TERRACOTTA, INC. d/b/a LOKUM RESTAURANT, RAMAZAN TAYLAN, and UGUR ARSLAN, Case No. 1:26-cv-03691 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a collective action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of all kitchen employees employed by the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff one and a half times his regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff New York's spread of hours premium for workdays that lasted longer than 10 hours. Virtually every shift Plaintiff worked lasted longer than 10 hours. The Defendants did not give Plaintiff New York's Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate and Payday as required by New York Law, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a chef at the Restaurant from October 2023 through January 2026. Lokum is a New York corporation that owns and operates the restaurant known as Lokum in Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Ramazan Taylan is an active owner of the Restaurant. He is regularly present at the restaurant and is, together with Defendant Arslan, in charge of employee hiring/firing, scheduling and pay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 LTF CLUB: Class Settlement in Turner Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL TURNER, v. LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT CO., LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00046-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service payment 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class settlement is granted, and the court approves the parties' settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 2. The Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payment is granted as follows: a. Class counsel shall receive $412,500.00 in attorneys' fees and $94,736.58 in costs; b. The Plaintiff Samuel Turner shall receive $7,500.00 as an incentive payment; c. Simpluris shall receive $45,300.00 in settlement administration costs; 3. The parties shall direct payment of 75% of the settlement allocated to the PAGA payment, or $140,625.00, to the LWDA as required by California law, and the remainder of the PAGA payment, $46,875.00, will be included in the net settlement fund; 4. The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement agreement and to comply with all deadlines or procedures for distribution set forth therein; 5. This action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, with the court specifically retaining jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement; and 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. The following class of an estimated 8,132 individuals is certified for purposes of this settlement: "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the Class Period," which extends from "Nov. 21, 2015 through the Preliminary Approval Date of Sept. 3, 2025." LTF is in the business of operating health and athletic clubs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Es7Vj at no extra charge.[CC] MAERSK LOGISTICS: Mendiola Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as MEGAN MENDIOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. MAERSK LOGISTICS & SERVICES USA INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-13004-1, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05633 to the proceeding. The complaint seeks to allege eight separately titled causes of action for (1) failure to provide rest periods, (2) failure to provide meal periods, (3) failure to pay overtime wages, (4) failure to pay all wages due (minimum wages/wages owed), (5) failure to accrue and permit use of paid sick leave, (6) unlawful deductions and rebates, (7) failure to pay all wages due at separation, and (8) willful failure to pay wages. Maersk Logistics & Services USA Inc. is an integrated transport and logistics company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel R. Miller, Esq. Mark D. Kemple, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 938-6871 E-mail: daniel.miller@gtlaw.com kemplem@gtlaw.com MANEUVER MARKETING: Court Dismisses Mislabeling Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ravindra Kumar Singh, writing for VitalLaw, reports that allegations challenging probiotic health-benefit representations failed under California law, while New York consumer-protection claims based on misleading labeling proceeded. Consumers pursuing a putative class action challenging marketing claims for a probiotic dietary supplement failed to state California statutory claims based on allegations that the product's promised health benefits lacked adequate scientific support, a federal court in California has found. However, the court allowed New York consumer-protection claims, express-warranty claims, and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed, concluding that allegations that the supplement contained far fewer probiotic colony-forming units than advertised plausibly supported claims that consumers were misled and paid a price premium for the product (Luxton v. Maneuver Marketing PTE. Ltd., No. 5:25-cv-04004-PCP (N.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2026)). Background. The putative class action challenged marketing for Provitalize Probiotic Dietary Supplements, alleging that product labels falsely represented that the supplement contained 68 billion viable colony-forming units (CFUs) of three probiotic strains, that those strains were present at clinically effective doses, and that the product supported weight management and immune and gastrointestinal health. The complaint asserted claims for breach of express warranty, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the supplement was marketed as an everyday probiotic formula for perimenopausal, menopausal, and post-menopausal individuals. It touted benefits including sustained weight management, improved immune and gastrointestinal health, and clinically effective doses of key probiotic strains. The marketers later rebranded the product, removing references to the probiotic strains, potency guarantees, and the challenged health-benefit claims while retaining the same formulation. The consumers alleged that testing across multiple product lots showed that the supplements contained less than 20 percent of the advertised CFUs. They contended that the discrepancy rendered false the product's potency representations, claims regarding clinically effective doses, and statements concerning weight-management and immune-health benefits. California statutory claims. The marketers moved to dismiss only the claims directed at the product's purported health benefits. The court agreed that the California statutory claims could not proceed because they were based on an impermissible lack-of-substantiation theory rather than allegations of actual falsity. Relying on Kwan v. SanMedica Int'l, 854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017), the court explained that private litigants may challenge advertising claims that are demonstrably false but may not pursue claims merely because the advertiser allegedly lacked sufficient evidence to support the claims. Under California law, an advertising statement is false when evidence directly contradicts it; by contrast, an unsubstantiated claim is one for which evidence is lacking or inconclusive. The court acknowledged that the consumers had produced testing that allegedly contradicted the advertised CFU count. However, that testing addressed only the amount of probiotics present in the supplement and did not establish that the product failed to deliver the promised health benefits. Likewise, the scientific studies cited in the complaint showed benefits at probiotic levels substantially higher than those advertised or allegedly present in the product, but they did not identify the threshold at which the product would cease providing the claimed benefits. Because the complaint did not allege facts directly demonstrating that the challenged health-benefit claims were false, the court concluded that the California statutory causes of action suffered from the same defect identified in Kwan. The court therefore dismissed the portions of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims directed at the benefits representations, while granting leave to amend. New York consumer-protection claims. The court reached a different conclusion regarding the claims brought under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. The marketers argued that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that reasonable consumers would be misled or that the consumers suffered a cognizable injury. The court disagreed. Applying the reasonable-consumer standard articulated in Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2015), the court held that the allegations plausibly stated a claim at the pleading stage. The court emphasized that the consumers had alleged that at least one component of the label, the advertised CFU count, was false. Because the supplement's composition was directly linked to its claimed efficacy, allegations that the product contained substantially fewer probiotics than promised could support an inference that the label's representations regarding clinically effective doses were misleading. Viewing the label as a whole, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that reasonable consumers would not be misled. Further, the court found that the consumers adequately alleged injury by claiming they paid more for the product than they otherwise would have paid because of the challenged representations. The court recognized that such a price-premium theory is sufficient to establish injury under the New York statutes. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the New York consumer-protection claims was denied. Express warranty and unjust enrichment. Likewise, the court declined to dismiss the breach-of-express-warranty claim. Although the marketers argued that the warranty claims rose or fell with the statutory claims, they offered no separate basis for dismissing the California warranty claim if the New York statutory claims survived. The court noted that dismissal of California consumer-protection claims does not necessarily require dismissal of a parallel express-warranty claim and concluded that the claim could proceed. The court also refused to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. While acknowledging that California courts remain divided on whether unjust enrichment constitutes an independent cause of action, the court explained that plaintiffs may pursue unjust enrichment and express contract theories in the alternative at the pleading stage. Because nothing on the face of the complaint rendered the quasi-contract theory implausible, dismissal was unwarranted. Thus, the court granted the motion to dismiss only as to the challenged benefits-based portions of the California statutory claims and granted leave to amend. The motion was otherwise denied. The case is No. 5:25-cv-04004-PCP. Judge: Pitts, P. Attorneys: Michael D. Braun (Kuzyk Law LLP) for Rachel Luxton. Susan Nicole Acquista (DLA Piper LLP US) for Maneuver Marketing Pte. Ltd. Companies: Maneuver Marketing Pte. Ltd.[GN] MARCO RUBIO: Standing Order Entered in Perlmutter Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRINA PERLMUTTER, et al., v. MARCO RUBIO, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-06458-AH-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hwang entered a standing order for civil cases: The action has been assigned to Judge Anne Hwang. Both the Court and all counsel bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in this Court. "Counsel," as used in this Order, includes attorneys and parties who have elected to appear without an attorney and are representing themselves in this civil litigation. To "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of this action, all called for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, all parties or their counsel are ordered to comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. Civility. All counsel must immediately review and comply with the Court’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalismguidelines. Presence of Counsel if a Party Has More Than One Attorney. Only one attorney for a party may be designated as lead counsel (and the designation must appear on the docket if a party has more than one attorney). Communications with Chambers. Neither counsel nor a party shall initiate contact with the Court or its Chambers’ staff by telephone, or by any other improper ex parte means. Magistrate Judge Referral for All Discovery Matters. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. All documents relating to discovery matters must include the words “DISCOVERY MATTER” in the caption to ensure proper routing. C Time for Filing and Hearing Motions. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. This Court hears civil motions on Wednesdays, beginning at 1:30 p.m. Marco Rubio is an American politician, attorney, and diplomat. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ru0wsk at no extra charge.[CC] MARKWAYNE MULLLIN: Blanche Dismissed w/o Prejudice as Attorney -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN HERMENEGILDO GREGORIO, v. MARKWAYNE MULLLIN et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00676-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order that: (1) Dismisses without prejudice Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Samuel Olson, Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office, as respondents; (2) Denies the petition except to find that Ivan Hermenegildo Gregorio must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (3) Directs the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. The district judge's decision vacating Hurtado is unlikely to change the outcome of a custody redetermination motion filed by an individual like Mr. Hermenegildo Gregorio, who is outside of California. The appropriate remedy is to put the ball in his court to file a motion for custody redetermination in his pending removal proceedings, with the benefit of a finding from the court that he is not categorically ineligible for bond under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). The court likewise must deny immediate release because Mr. Hermenegildo Gregorio has not met his burden of showing his current detention unlawful under section 1226. Immigration detainee Ivan Hermenegildo Gregorio, by counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, alleging he is unlawfully confined in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3tY7bb at no extra charge.[CC] MASTEC INC: Faces Reed Suit Over Breach of Clients' Personal Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTEC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-24068-BB (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in or around August 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. MasTec, Inc. is an infrastructure engineering and construction company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jane N. Manwarring, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jmanwarring@classlawdc.com MATHESON TRI-GAS: Fernandez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as EDDY V. FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV38564, 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 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06433 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff premises his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, he alleges that Matheson violated the Labor Code by failing to pay for off-the-clock work; failing to pay overtime; failing to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in California with compliant meal periods and rest breaks; failing to reimburse necessary business expenditures; failing to pay all wages at separation; failing to furnish accurate itemized statements. He further alleges these purported violations also violated the California Business and Professional Code. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. provides gases and gas handling equipment. The Company offers gas generation, separation, purification, and detection systems.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lindsay Hutner, Esq. Nathan Norimoto, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-3668 Telephone: (415) 655-1300 Facsimile: (415) 707-2010 E-mail: lindsay.hutner@gtlaw.com nathan.norimoto@gtlaw.com MDL 3009: 7th Cir. Affirms Denial of Fee Allocation Challenge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: SERESTO FLEA AND TICK COLLAR MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION v. APPEAL OF: LAURA REVOLINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Case No. 25-2401 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of Revolinsky's motion challenging the allocation of fees among the Plaintiffs' attorneys in the settlement of a multidistrict litigation. This attorney fee appeal arises from multidistrict litigation over Seresto flea and tick collars, medical devices allegedly linked to injuries and deaths in thousands of pets. The Plaintiffs brought class actions against Bayer Corporation, related Bayer entities, and Elanco Animal Health, Inc., which acquired Bayer's animal health division in 2020. One case in the District of New Jersey was filed by Laura Revolinsky, represented by Joseph LoPiccolo (Poulos LoPiccolo PC) and Bruce Nagel (Nagel Rice LLP), on behalf of a putative class of pet owners. Attorneys Nagel and LoPiccolo filed and briefed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to centralize Revolinsky's case and similar actions in the District of New Jersey for coordinated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Attorney Rachel Soffin, representing other plaintiffs, supported MDL consolidation but argued the cases should instead be transferred to the Western District of Missouri. Soffin and Nagel Rice attorney Randee Matloff appeared at the JPML hearing to argue for MDL treatment and their preferred transfer locations. The panel granted MDL coordination but ultimately transferred the cases to the Northern District of Illinois, adopting the Defendants' proposed venue. After the MDL transfer, the district court appointed Soffin, along with attorneys Michael Reese and Michael Williams, as Class Counsel, supported by twelve of the sixteen plaintiff groups. It also appointed Carl Malmstrom as Liaison Counsel between Class Counsel and other plaintiffs' attorneys. The court denied Revolinsky's request to appoint two Nagel Rice attorneys as interim lead counsel. At that stage, the MDL cases were still in early procedural posture with no formal discovery begun, including in Revolinsky's case. The court requested a proposed case management order, and at a status conference, Reese suggested implementing an early time-and-expense protocol to improve coordination among the Plaintiffs' counsel based on his experience in another MDL. The district court issued Case Management Order No. 4, establishing a plaintiffs' counsel time-and-expense protocol. The order required all Plaintiffs' attorneys to obtain the Class Counsel's written approval before performing compensable work or incurring expenses, and generally limited recoverable "common benefit" work to time and expenses incurred after February 7, 2022, when leadership counsel was appointed. The Class Counsel was tasked with collecting and reviewing submissions and notifying attorneys of noncompliance. Revolinsky's counsel did not object to the order or propose an alternative protocol. Revolinsky's attorneys received Case Management Order No. 4 through the court's electronic filing system and email. Attorney Michael Reese emailed Nagel Rice (and the message was forwarded to Poulos LoPiccolo) referencing the order and instructing that the first time-and-expense report should include all work "from inception to date through March 31, 2022." Attorney LoPiccolo did not seek clarification about the order or what "inception" meant. Both law firms timely submitted their initial reports, which largely included pre-transfer work on the JPML motion. The Class Counsel did not object or notify them that pre-appointment work would not be compensable. In December 2023, after negotiations led by the Class Counsel, the parties reached a nationwide settlement creating a $15 million fund to compensate the Plaintiffs and cover attorney fees and costs. The agreement capped total attorney fees at 38% of the fund. In January 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set deadlines of June 17, 2024, for fee applications and July 22, 2024, for objections and opt-outs. The Class Counsel later sought just over $4.5 million in attorney fees, based on a 6,101-hour lodestar with an average rate of about $750 per hour, plus over $150,000 in expenses. The fee motion did not break down amounts by firm, instead relying on sealed monthly time and expense reports submitted under Case Management Order No. 4. Relevant to Revolinsky's appeal, the fee motion stated—citing Order No. 4—that it included only time billed after MDL formation and leadership appointment and therefore did not seek compensation for Nagel Rice's or Poulos LoPiccolo's pre-MDL work. Neither Revolinsky nor her counsel objected to the fee request. The district court held a fairness hearing on January 3, 2025, and granted final approval of the settlement and full approval of the Class Counsel's fee and expense request on January 6, 2025. Afterward, counsel learned that their fee awards were significantly reduced: Nagel Rice received $6,010, about $130,000 less than expected due to exclusion of pre-MDL time, and Poulos LoPiccolo received $12,320. They later discovered that this also excluded over $49,000 in pre-MDL work and over $14,000 in untimely reported work (Aug. 2022–Apr. 2023). Requests for reconsideration were rejected by the Class Counsel. Instead of seeking reconsideration or extraordinary relief from the final approval order, Revolinsky and her attorneys filed a separate motion for attorney fees on April 16, 2025, more than a month after being informed that no adjustments would be made and nearly nine months after the deadline to object to the fee application. They sought compensation for pre-MDL work and expenses from both firms, as well as untimely reported work by Poulos LoPiccolo, supported by declarations from LoPiccolo and Nagel, who described the reduced award as a "shock." On July 25, 2025, the district court denied the motion, stating that under Case Management Order No. 4 and the fee application, exclusion of pre-MDL time should not have been unexpected and noting that the order clearly required monthly reporting. Revolinsky filed a timely appeal on August 11, 2025. The Seventh Circuit held that, in a class action, a district court has a fiduciary duty to the class and must carefully review any proposed fee award for reasonableness, even in the absence of objections. Here, the court satisfied that obligation by approving the overall settlement, the distribution to class members, and the attorneys' fee award after reviewing the submitted time-and-expense reports. However, the Seventh Circuit explained that this fiduciary duty runs to the class—not to class counsel—and does not require the district court to resolve internal disputes among plaintiffs' attorneys over fee allocation. The Class Counsel had clearly warned that pre-MDL work would not be compensated, and the court's approval was consistent with the case management order and fee application. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the narrow ground that the fee process was fair to the class and supported by the record. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/h8SzTHOon MEAD JOHNSON: Seeks to Stay Garland Class Action ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA GARLAND, et al., v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03437-BAS-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on July 24, 2026, will move the Court to certify for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) the question of whether the Plaintiffs' legal claims that the Defendants' advertising claims are (1) unlawful under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 and (2) have purportedly unjustly enriched the Defendants' are preempted by the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act's ("FDCA") prohibition on private enforcement of the FDCA. In addition, the Defendants will move the Court to stay this action pending resolution of Ninth Circuit proceedings. This motion is based on the fact that reasonable jurists might disagree, and have disagreed, on reconciling the apparently opposing answers suggested to the question by Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc., 48 F.4th 1040 (9th Cir. 2022), and Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., 106 F.4th 842 (9th Cir. 2024). Moreover, this legal question is controlling and would materially advance the termination of the litigation because a ruling that Plaintiffs' claims are preempted would dispose of the entire case. Mead Johnson is an American company that is a manufacturer of infant formula. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mrkP7m at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alex Beroukhim, Esq. Oscar Ramallo, Esq. Allyson C. Myers, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: alex.beroukhim@arnoldporter.com oscar.ramallo@arnoldporter.com ally.myers@arnoldporter.com MINDVALLEY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unwanted Subscriptions ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Maria Tiongson filed a class action lawsuit against Mindvalley Inc. Why: Tiongson claims Mindvalley tricks consumers into paying for unwanted subscriptions for its wellness and self-help programs. Where: The Mindvalley class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Mindvalley tricks consumers into paying for unwanted subscriptions for its wellness and self-help programs. Plaintiff Maria Tiongson claims Mindvalley, which calls itself "the world's most effective transformation platform," misleads consumers into thinking that a subscription to its wellness and self-help program lasts only for a discrete period of time while hiding disclosures that the subscription automatically renews. "Mindvalley hides the truth both before and after consumers purchase a subscription and any disclosures it provides fall far short of the minimum standard required by law for companies that offer subscriptions," the complaint says. Tiongson wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who were automatically enrolled into and charged for at least one month of a Mindvalley subscription at any time from the applicable statute of limitations period to the date of judgment. Mindvalley subscriptions difficult to cancel, lawsuit alleges Tiongson argues consumers are unable to make informed decisions about whether to purchase a Mindvalley subscription due to the company's failure to inform them that the subscription will automatically renew until canceled. In the alleged subscription scam, Mindvalley is also accused of making it difficult to cancel subscriptions and refuses to honor cancellations, instead charging consumers who canceled for additional renewals, the class action lawsuit claims. "Mindvalley also misleads consumers regarding its 'risk-free' refund guarantee, both by obscuring how to obtain a refund and by refusing to honor refunds for those consumers who do manage to complete the intentionally complicated process," the class action lawsuit says. Tiongson claims Mindvalley violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and is liable for conversion and unjust enrichment. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. Recently, software company Adobe agreed to a $150 million DOJ settlement for allegedly using fine print and inconspicuous hyperlinks to hide key information about its subscription plans. The plaintiff is represented by James Austin Long of The Long Law Firm PLLC and Ethan D. Roman of Wittels McInturff Palikovic. The Mindvalley class action lawsuit is Tiongson v. Mindvalley Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01270, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] NANO-X IMAGING: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Steele Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATLYN STEELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NANO-X IMAGING LTD., EREZ MELTZER, and RAN DANIEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-07062 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Nano-X's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Nano-X securities at artificially inflated prices between March 31, 2025 and April 17, 2026. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Defendants overstated purported efficiency gains achieved in Nano-X'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, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, Nano-X's stock price fell $0.695 per share, or 24.39 percent, to close at $2.155 per share on April 20, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Nano-X Imaging Ltd. is a medical imaging technology developer based in Tikva, Israel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Calandra, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: bcalandra@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com NARA ORGANICS: Zetterstrom Sues Over Contaminated Infant Product ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA ZETTERSTROM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NARA ORGANICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05026-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law and California's Business and Professions Code, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Nara Organics infant formula product. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products are contaminated with clostridium botulinum, also known as infant botulism, which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct. Nara Organics, Inc. is a manufacturer of infant formula products, with its principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: cmoore@reesellp.com NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Troutman, writing for JDSupra reports that the NBA is right in the middle of its playoffs but they will have to play defense on a whole different level. A consumer named George Head who resides in Orange County, California has sued the NBA claiming it continued to send him marketing SMS messages even after he requested they stop. The allegations here are pretty thin but here is what he claims: -- On or about November 29, 2025, Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. -- Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, on or about December 15, 2025. -- Overall, Defendant sent Plaintiff more than one marketing text message after Plaintiff's initial stop request. -- The purpose of Defendant's text messages was to solicit the sale of consumer goods, services, and/or properties Ok. We have been seeing a ton of these revocation cases lately– something EVERYBODY needs to be VERY aware of since consumers do NOT just need to reply "stop" to effectuate an opt out. The Plaintiff contends the messages demonstrate the NBA lacked the formal written internal DNC policy required by the TCPA. On the basis of these rather thing allegations Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of: All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class certification, received two or more text messages within any 12-month period, from or on behalf of Defendant, regarding Defendant's goods, services, or properties, to said person's residential cellular telephone number, after communicating to Defendant that they did not wish to receive text messages by replying to the messages with a "stop" or similar opt-out instruction You can read the whole complaint here: NBA Complaint Shouldn't be too hard to shake this one, assuming the NBA has the written policy required by the TCPA regs. If they don't, however, the NBA could find itself in a catastrophic situation. If YOU need help making sure you have all the TCPA policies and procedures you need–and that they are up to date with all the new changes out there– be sure to give Troutman Amin, LLP a ring to discuss. And if you're not FULLY up to date on the rules around SMS revocation you REALLY need to give us a call. Chat soon. [GN] NATIONAL LUTHERAN: Court OKs $289K Settlement in "Chittum" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jessica Chittum, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Lutheran Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-00082 (W.D. Va.), United States Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Settlement Approval, finding that the proposed settlement satisfied the requirements of both the FLSA and Rule 23 and was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Named Plaintiff Jessica Chittum, a Certified Nursing Assistant who worked at The Legacy at North Augusta in Staunton, Virginia, from July 2023 to February 2024, brought this hybrid collective and class action against National Lutheran on October 11, 2024. Chittum alleged that National Lutheran failed to pay overtime at 1.5 times employees' regular rates and failed to include shift differentials, bonuses, and other incentive pay when calculating overtime rates. National Lutheran denied liability and disputed the allegations and damages calculations throughout the litigation. Following an exchange of multiple years of wage and hour data and months of protracted negotiations, the parties identified 410 similarly situated individuals across Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania and reached a proposed Settlement Agreement. On September 18, 2025, the parties moved for preliminary certification of a Settlement Collective combining the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement and the Settlement Notice on January 22, 2026, after which class counsel filed an Amended Complaint adding class claims under Maryland and Pennsylvania overtime statutes. ILYM Group, the settlement administrator, mailed the Settlement Notice and FLSA Consent and Release Form to all 410 Settlement Collective members on February 12, 2026. The objection and exclusion deadline was March 16, 2026. No member objected, no member opted out of the Rule 23 class settlement, and sixty-nine members signed FLSA Consent and Release forms to opt into the collective settlement. The Court held a fairness hearing on April 13, 2026, before issuing this opinion on June 18, 2026. Under the Settlement Agreement, National Lutheran agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of $289,530.29. Of that amount, $104,000.00 was allocated to attorney's fees and costs for Plaintiffs' counsel Timothy Coffield, $14,530.25 to ILYM's administration fees, $1,000.00 to a service award for Chittum, and the remaining $170,000.04 to the claimant payment fund. Individual settlement payments ranged from $1.53 to $6,283.65, with an average payment of $413.96, representing about 150 percent of each member's best day wage damages and about 75 percent of best day total damages including liquidated damages. Analyzing the Rule 23(e)(2) factors, the Court found that class counsel and Chittum adequately represented the class, that the settlement was negotiated at arm's length after months of adversarial bargaining, that the relief was adequate given the litigation risks and National Lutheran's good faith defense, and that the settlement treated class members equitably through individualized pro rata payments. Applying the parallel Lynn's Food Stores standard under the FLSA, the Court found a bona fide dispute existed and that the settlement was fair and reasonable for the same reasons supporting Rule 23 approval. On attorney's fees, the Court approved the $104,000.00 award, equal to 35.9 percent of the gross fund, a discount from counsel's standard 40 percent contingency rate. A lodestar cross-check using 172.77 hours billed at rates of $475 to $545 per hour produced a multiplier of 1.18, which the Court found reasonable and consistent with comparable cases in the circuit. The Court granted the Joint Motion for Final Settlement Approval, approved the Settlement Agreement, and dismissed the case with prejudice, retaining jurisdiction for 120 days to enforce the settlement. A Copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated June 18, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HNvvyd from PacerMonitor.com NATIONAL PRESTO: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCabe v. National Presto Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06552 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order referring motion to Certify Class to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. National engages in the production and sale of housewares/small appliances, defense products, and absorbent products in North America.[CC] NCB MGMT: Arbitration Judgment Against Wallace Affirmed on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Respondent, v. ELEANOR WALLACE, Appellant, Case No. ED113669 (Mo. App.), the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Four, affirmed the judgement of the trial court confirming an arbitration award in favor of NCB for $6,549. Wallace appealed the judgment arguing that NCB failed to prove she entered into the payment extension agreement (EA) containing the arbitration clause. The arbitration award had been confirmed based on the trial court's finding that Wallace agreed to arbitrate future disputes in exchange for an extension of time to make two overdue loan payments. On February 25, 2017, Wallace purchased a 2008 Cadillac CTS from Jim Butler and financed the purchase through a promissory note and retail installment contract. That same day, Santander Consumer USA, Inc. acquired the dealer's rights under the financing agreement. Wallace made timely payments for more than a year but defaulted after missing payments in August and September 2018. After defaulting, Wallace requested additional time to make her missed payments. On October 19, 2018, Santander sent her the EA under which it agreed to extend the payment deadline in exchange for Wallace's agreement to arbitrate certain future claims, release existing claims related to the contract, and accept an arbitration provision that excluded claims seeking less than $15,000 and did not require Santander to arbitrate its own claims. Less than a year later, Wallace again defaulted on her payments. On June 17, 2019, Santander sent her the required second notice of right to cure default, which referenced the retail installment contract (RIC) but not the EA. Santander later repossessed and sold the vehicle, then notified Wallace that she still owed $6,549.08 under the RIC. On August 26, 2020, Santander assigned its interest in Wallace's financing contract to NCB. The assignment broadly defined the "contract" to include all related financing documents, and the trial court found that this definition encompassed the EA. On April 17, 2023, NCB sued Wallace to recover the remaining balance owed under the financing agreement and related repossession costs. Wallace filed an answer and counterclaims alleging that Santander failed to provide the notices required before repossessing and selling her vehicle. She later amended her counterclaims to seek more than $25,000 in damages and class certification based on Santander's alleged widespread violations of the Uniform Commercial Code's (UCC's) notice requirements. On December 4, 2023, NCB moved to compel arbitration of Wallace's counterclaims and defenses under the arbitration clause in the EA, arguing that her amended counterclaim seeking more than $25,000 triggered its right to compel arbitration. In support, NCB submitted an unnotarized declaration from an employee, Randy Bockenstedt, purporting to authenticate Wallace's signature on the EA. Wallace opposed the motion, arguing that the EA was between her and Santander, not NCB, and that the assignment to NCB was ineffective without her consent. She also argued that the arbitration provision was unconscionable because it gave NCB the unilateral right to compel arbitration and that NCB had waived any right to arbitrate by participating in the litigation before seeking arbitration. After a hearing on February 20, 2024, the trial court granted NCB's motion to compel arbitration. It held that Santander validly assigned its rights under both the retail installment contract and the EA to NCB, that Wallace was bound by the EA, that the arbitration provision was enforceable and supported by consideration, and that NCB had not waived its right to compel arbitration because the EA allowed it to litigate claims under $15,000 and elect arbitration once the amount in dispute exceeded that threshold. The parties proceeded to arbitration, and on December 6, 2024, the arbitrator awarded NCB $6,549.08 and rejected Wallace's arguments that the dispute was not subject to arbitration and that Santander violated the Uniform Commercial Code's pre-sale notice requirements. Wallace then appealed. On appeal, Wallace argued that NCB failed to prove she agreed to the arbitration clause because it relied on an unnotarized declaration from an employee who did not testify. NCB responded that Wallace failed to preserve that evidentiary objection and, alternatively, argued that she was bound by the arbitration agreement because she never denied signing the payment extension agreement or disputed its existence. The Court of Appeals rejected NCB's argument that Wallace failed to preserve her evidentiary challenge, holding that she adequately preserved her hearsay objection by raising it in her response to the motion to compel arbitration. The court further held that the unnotarized Bockenstedt Declaration was an unsworn statement and therefore was not competent evidence that Wallace signed the EA. Although Wallace never denied signing the EA, she consistently argued that NCB failed to prove she had done so. The court noted that NCB had ample notice of the defect in its proof but failed to correct it before the trial court ruled, and it expressed no criticism of Wallace's counsel for adopting that litigation strategy. Hence, the judgement of the trial court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/9gKFApGEf NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT: De Leon Seeks Wage Penalties Under PAGA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAELINE PONCE DE LEON on behalf of the general public and all other aggrieved employees v. NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT TEAMS, LLC, DBA PATROL N.E.T., a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV17412 (cal. Super., June 3, 2026) is a representative action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code sections 2698 et seq. In this case, the Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. Accordingly, the Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages and wage and hour violations resulting from Defendants': (a) failure to accurately pay overtime wages, (b) failure to pay minimum wages, and (c) failure to provide meal periods before the end of the fifth hour worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period before the end of the fifth hour worked. The Neighborhood Enhancement Team is a community-focused initiative deployed by local governments and civic organizations to improve the aesthetic appeal, safety, and overall quality of life in municipal areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel D. Almon, Esq. Joshua I. Epstein, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 312-0299 Facsimile: (310) 312-0296 E-mail: almon@law-rm.com epstein@law-rm.com clerks@law-rm.com NEW YORK: Class Certification Denial Upheld in Alli NYCHRL Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Ahmad Alli, et al., appellants, v. City of New York, et al., respondents, Case No. 2024-07502, Index No. 514002/22 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs brought a putative class action seeking damages for alleged violations of Administrative Code of the City of New York Section 8-107. They appealed from a March 14, 2024 order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Justice Patria Frias-Colón), which denied their motion for class certification under CPLR Article 9. The Plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of New York City Police Department (NYPD) Captains of Asian descent who allegedly were denied discretionary promotions to Deputy Inspector from September 27, 2018 onward. They claimed the NYPD engaged in race-based discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law by withholding promotions beyond the rank of Captain. They moved for class certification under CPLR Article 9, but the Supreme Court, Kings County (order dated March 14, 2024) denied the motion. The Plaintiffs appealed that denial. The Appellate Division reiterated that a plaintiff seeking class certification under CPLR Article 9 bears the burden of proving the statutory requirements—numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority—through an evidentiary showing, and that conclusory assertions are insufficient. Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding certification, and the Appellate Division may exercise similar discretion on review. Even assuming the Plaintiffs established common questions of law or fact, the court held that their conclusory claim that the case would achieve "widespread, systematic reform" did not demonstrate that a class action was superior to other available methods for resolving the dispute. The remaining arguments were either not reached or lacked merit. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under CPLR Article 9. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision & Order is available at https://lnk.ua/CV8qGQiUB. Law Office of John A. Scola, PLLC (John Scola -- jscola@johnscolalaw.com -- and Jack Jaskaran New York, NY, of counsel), for appellants. Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner -- dbrenner@law.nyc.gov -- Philip W. Young -- phyoung@law.nyc.gov -- and Elina Druker -- edruker@law.nyc.gov -- of counsel), for respondents. PANDA RESTAURANT: Greer Suit Removed from Cal. Super. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as DAWNISHA GREER, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CVRI2602762, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03279 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully violated the card number truncation requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing 10 digits of customers' credit and debit card numbers -- namely, the first six and last four digits -- on receipts provided at the point of sale. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. operates chain of restaurants. The Company offers prepared foods, snacks, and drinks for on and off-premises consumption.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Spencer Persson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: spersson@bakerlaw.com PATRIOT CLAIMS: Underpays Fulfillment Specialists, McCormick Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTY McCORMICK, ALYSSA WILSON, ROSALINA GORE, AMBER NICKELL, DANIEL McCULLERS, K. MICHELLE STOLTZ and PATRICIA BULAUSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PATRIOT CLAIMS LLC d/b/a VETCLAIMS.AI and LUKAS SIMIANER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01580 (W.D. Tex., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as fulfillment specialists at any time between June 2025 and February 2026. Patriot Claims LLC, doing business as VetClaims.AI, is a property inspection services provider, headquartered in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry Street P.O. Box 1527 Terre Haute, IN 47808 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com PEPSICO INC: Kononenko Mislabeling Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as ALEX KONONENKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC., a New York corporation, STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC., an Illinois corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV493594, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05731 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of nationwide and California classes of consumers who purchased various Gatorade-branded beverage products, alleging that the marketing and labeling of the products are false and misleading because such are advertised as having "no artificial flavors" and being "naturally flavored with other natural flavors," when, according to Plaintiff, the products contain citric acid, which Plaintiff alleges is artificial and functions as a flavor. PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food and beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3804 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com - and - Natalie K. Sanders, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Telephone: (310) 788-9900 Facsimile: (310) 788-3399 E-mail: NSanders@perkinscoie.com PNC FINANCIAL: Keturah Suit Removed from State Ct. to M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SHADEE KETURAH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 16-2026-CA-003687-AXXX-M (Filed may 27, 2026), was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 22, 2026. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01620 to the proceeding. The putative class alleged in the Instant Action consists of a Florida Class defined as "all consumers with Florida addresses that were sent a collection communication from and/or by Defendant, or someone on Defendant's behalf in an attempt to collect a debt during 24 months preceding the filing of this Class Action Complaint whereby said collection communication was sent to the consumer after the consumer requested Defendant to cease communication with the consumer." The Plaintiff brings a claim both individually and on behalf of a putative class for alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collections Protection Act. PNC Financial is an American bank holding company and financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Samuel J. Awad, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: samuel@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com PRESTIGE TIME: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Senior Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE TIME, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04981 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.prestigetime.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Prestige Time, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal PUMA UNITED: Lemense Suit Seeks Refund of Unlawful Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL LEMENSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUMA UNITED NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12654-JEK (D. Mass., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and money had and received. The case arises from the Defendant's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of the Defendant systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendant is obligated to return to him and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. Puma United North America, LLC is a producer of apparel, footwear, and accessories based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, PC 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com QUEST NUTRITION: Ballard Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE BALLARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. QUEST NUTRITION, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV16092 (Filed May 20, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 24, 2026. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06893 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff sues on behalf of "all persons who purchased one or more of the Misbranded Products in California and made his or her purchase at any time within the longest applicable limitations period." Quest manufactures and sells numerous protein bars, cookies, candy, and bake shop goods throughout California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren M. Michals, Esq. Seara Sullivan, Esq. NIXONPEABODYLLP One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8200 Facsimile: (415) 984-8300 E-mail: lmichals@nixonpeabody.com ssullivan@nixonpeabody.com REBUILT BROKERAGE: Girifalco Sues Over Unwanted Pre-Recorded Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ BOBBY GIRIFALCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REBUILT BROKERAGE LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-03827-GAW (E.D. Pa., June 3, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited pre recorded calls without consent as well as seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. To promote its services and generate business, the Defendant engages in telemarketing campaigns directed at consumers and prospective customers throughout the United States. These campaigns include the use of pre-recorded voice message calls, as per Plaintiff's experience, says the suit. Rebuilt is a real estate investment firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com REMEDY MEDS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Murphy Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LENA MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMEDY MEDS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03217 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending marketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Remedy Meds LLC is a subscription-based telehealth platform provider doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit R. Venkatesh, Esq. 2750 SW 145th Avenue, #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Email: vv@plgdamage.com REVLON CONSUMER: Mitchum Contains Fragrance, Khangi Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA KHANGI, LLOYD SONGER, and NICOLE FLICK on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05254-UA (S.D.N.Y.. June 22, 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. 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. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Gambling Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- CU Today reports that Robinhood is facing a proposed class action in California federal court that alleges the online brokerage illegally operates a sports betting platform by marketing event contracts as investments when they are actually unlicensed gambling products that violate state gaming laws, according to court filings reported by Law360. The lawsuit contends Robinhood's Prediction Markets Hub misleads consumers by portraying sports event contracts as a sophisticated investment product rather than wagers on sporting outcomes. Plaintiffs allege Robinhood and its partner, Kalshi, enabled customers to place what amounted to sports bets while avoiding the licensing, consumer protections and regulatory requirements that apply to traditional sportsbooks, according to the complaint summarized by Law360. The case arrives amid a widening legal battle over prediction markets. Reuters previously reported that state regulators in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Nevada and other states have challenged sports event contracts offered through Kalshi and Robinhood, arguing they resemble sports betting subject to state gambling laws, while the companies maintain the contracts are federally regulated derivatives overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The consumer lawsuit echoes arguments made by several state attorneys general and tribal gaming groups, which have alleged that companies including Kalshi and Robinhood are disguising sports betting as financial trading. Robinhood has consistently argued that its event contracts comply with federal regulations and are offered through CFTC-regulated markets, but the growing number of lawsuits and regulatory challenges highlights the unsettled legal status of sports-related prediction contracts in the United States. [GN] ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sells Unregulated Sports Contracts, Mazza Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW MAZZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC. and ROBINHOOD DERIVATIVES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05610 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Civil Remedy Statutes for Recovery of Gambling Losses, Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, and California Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from Robinhood's alleged assistance in selling illegal and unregulated sports event contracts to its customers through its mobile application and website. By operating an unlicensed sports gambling operation, Robinhood has violated state gambling laws and regulations, engaged in deceptive conduct, and unjustly enriched itself at the expense of millions of consumers, suit says. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is the parent company of Robinhood Derivatives, LLC based in Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Derivatives, LLC is an investment platform company based in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Alexander C. Cohen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com acohen@rgrdlaw.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 Email: jherman@hermanjones.com - and - Serina M. Vash, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 153 Central Avenue, Suite 131 Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (862) 250-3930 Email: svash@hermanjones.com ROEHL TRANSPORT: Brief in Opposition to Class Cert Due Sept. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris, Rachelle v. Roehl Transport, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00227 (W.D. Wisc., Filed March 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order setting Briefing Deadlines as to Motion to Certify Class under Rule 23: -- Brief in Opposition due Sept. 15, 2026 -- Brief in Reply due Aug. 17, 2026 The nature of suit states Diversity-Negotiable Instrument. Roehl is a Wisconsin-based trucking company providing asset-based freight and logistics services.[CC] RUSSELL CELLULAR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 1, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN AGUILAR-VASQUEZ, ADESSA CONSULTING, INC. and TINA BURNS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZONWIRELESS, Case No. 6:26-cv-03218-MBB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Benton entered a scheduling and trial order as follows: 1. This case is scheduled for a jury trial, commencing Oct. 4, 2027. 2. A final pretrial conference in this case will be held at 9:00 a.m., Sept. 20, 2027. 3. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before Jan. 29, 2027. 4. Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or before Jan. 29, 2027. 5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed on or before March 1, 2027. 6. All class-based discovery shall be completed on or before April 30, 2027. Russell is a provider of wireless communication services in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hQNOfo at no extra charge.[CC] SAM'S EAST: Discovery Order Entered in Johnson Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson, v. Sam's East, Inc. d/b/a Sam's Club, et al., Case No. 7:26-cv-02048-NSR-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Reznik entered a discovery order as follows: All discovery (including requests for admission and any applications to the Court regarding the conduct of discovery) must be initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all discovery. Discovery motions – that is, any dispute arising under Rules 26 through 37 or Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and Section 2A of the Court's Individual Practices. Any request for an adjournment of a court proceeding or for an extension of time for a deadline must be made as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to the party making the application and must be made in accordance with Section 1E of the Court's Individual Practices. The Court holds regular Status Conferences at which counsel should be prepared to discuss the status of discovery, the potential for settlement, and any other issues to be resolved. Sam's Club is a membership warehouse club renowned for bulk groceries, exclusive savings on fuel, and private-label goods. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=obQzGl at no extra charge.[CC] SECURITAS SECURITY: Modification of Briefing Schedule Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-ASK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to modify the briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: -- The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be July 7, 2026; -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be Aug. 12, 2026; –- The current hearing date of Aug. 12, 2026 for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued to Sept. 9, 2026 or a date which is convenient for the Court. The Plaintiffs' counsel has trial in another matter beginning on Aug. 17, 2026 that is expected to last at least 2-3 weeks. Good cause exists for a brief extension of the parties' deadlines to file an opposition and a reply to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, including delays in scheduling necessary depositions and a discovery dispute necessitating judicial guidance. On March 27, 2026 the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. Securitas offers services such as guard, patrol and inspection, access control. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TTkNlC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Vanessa M. Rodriguez, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Boulevard, Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com vrodriguez@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. Jasmine R. Kiaei, Esq. Landon R. Schwob, Esq. Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 230-4250 Facsimile: (818) 230-4251 E-mail: fmagnanimo@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com jkiaei@fisherphillips.com lschwob@fisherphillips.com lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com SIETE BUCKS: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Tequila Brand ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Andrei Tomescu filed a class action lawsuit against Siete Bucks Spirits LLC, the parent company of Dwayne Johnson-backed tequila brand Teremana. Why: Tomescu alleges Teremana tequila is falsely advertised as "100% agave," "handcrafted" and "small batch." Where: The Teremana tequila class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Siete Bucks Spirits -- the company co-founded by actor and entertainer Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson -- falsely markets its Teremana tequila brand as "100% agave," "handcrafted" and "small batch." Plaintiff Andrei Tomescu filed the Teremana tequila class action lawsuit on April 3 in Illinois federal court, alleging Siete Bucks Spirits engaged in deceptive and unfair marketing practices that caused consumers to pay a substantial price premium for a product that does not deliver on its advertised claims. Tomescu alleges he purchased a bottle of Teremana tequila in Illinois in January 2026, believing the product to be made exclusively from Blue Weber agave, produced in small batches and made using traditional handcrafted methods. The Dwayne Johnson tequila lawsuit alleges that independent laboratory testing using an advanced scientific method called SNIF-NMR analysis -- a technique capable of identifying the precise molecular origin of ethanol in a spirit -- found isotope signatures in Teremana Blanco inconsistent with ethanol derived exclusively from agave. The complaint alleges that as a direct result of the misleading advertising, consumers pay at least $11, or 57.90% more, for a bottle of Teremana than they would pay for a comparable tequila that does not make premium production claims. Lawsuit: Dwayne Johnson tequila not 'handcrafted' The Teremana tequila class action alleges the "small batch" and "handcrafted" claims are equally misleading, pointing to the scale of Teremana's Jalisco Highlands distillery as evidence of large-scale industrial production rather than artisanal craftsmanship. The complaint claims the distillery is capable of producing at least 12 million bottles or approximately 2,300,000 gallons of tequila annually. "The product Tomescu purchased is industrially manufactured mixed tequila so he didn't purchase a small-batch, high-value spirit, but rather a generic spirit with an overinflated price," the Teremana tequila class action lawsuit says. During the class period, Siete Bucks Spirits sold at least 20 million bottles of Teremana nationally, including at least 500,000 in Illinois alone, the complaint states. Tomescu seeks to represent a nationwide class of all consumers who purchased Teremana tequila in the United States from March 2020 through the present, an Illinois subclass and a multi-state subclass covering 25 additional states. The Dwayne Johnson tequila lawsuit demands a jury trial and requests compensatory, punitive and treble damages in excess of $5,500,000, along with disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Among a number of tequila class action lawsuits, Heaven Hill Distilleries is also accused of falsely marketing its Lunazul tequila as being made from 100% Blue Weber agave. The Teremana tequila class action lawsuit is Tomescu v. Siete Bucks Spirits LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03709, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. [GN] SKINHEALTH SYSTEMS: Settlement in Alghazwi Suit for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------ SkinHealth Systems Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2026, that settlement is reached in the Alghazwi class suit that is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. on June 17, 2026, SkinHealth Systems Inc., f/k/a The Beauty Health Company (the Company), entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Alghazwi v. The Beauty Health Company, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09733-SPG-MAA (the Securities Class Action and, together with the proposed settlement, the Proposed Securities Settlement). If approved by the court, the Proposed Securities Settlement will fully resolve the Securities Class Action claims against the Company and the individual defendants, Andrew Stanleick and Liyuan Woo. As consideration for the Proposed Securities Settlement, the Company will cause to be paid a total cash settlement payment of $18,000,000 (the Cash Payment). Of this amount, the Company will be responsible to pay only $3,000,000 of the Cash Payment from its own funds, while the remaining $15,000,000 of the Cash Payment will come from certain of the Company's insurers to facilitate the resolution of the Securities Class Action with the members of the putative class in the Proposed Securities Settlement. The Cash Payment will be placed into an escrow account within 30 days of the later of (i) the court's entry of a Preliminary Approval Order, or (ii) the date the Company receives payment instructions for the Cash Payment, for the benefit of all persons or entities which, between May 10, 2022 and Nov. 13, 2023, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, or Company call options, or all persons or entities which sold or otherwise disposed of Company put options, and were damaged thereby (the Settlement Class Members). Plaintiffs will seek attorneys' fees and costs, the amount of which is estimated not to exceed 30% of the Cash Payment, or $5,400,000. The Settlement Class Members will receive from the escrow account the Cash Payment, less plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, administrative expenses, taxes and tax expenses, any awards to plaintiffs Priscilla Dijkgraaf and Martijn Dijkgraaf, and other fees and expenses authorized by the court. SkinHealth Systems Inc. is a skincare-focused company specializing in aesthetic and beauty health technologies and products. The company develops and markets devices and treatments aimed at improving skin quality and overall skin health through professional and consumer channels. SNAP INC: Bride Appeals Third Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN BRIDE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Kristin Bride, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Snap Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06680-FWS-MBK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for strict liability, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Business and Professional Code and the New York General Business Law. On July 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 4, 2025. On Sept. 29, 2025, Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint. The appellate case is styled as Bride, et al. v. Snap Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3757, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on June 23, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on July 23, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 1, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KRISTIN BRIDE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Juyoun Han, Esq. EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP 24 Union Square, E Penthouse New York, NY 10003 Defendants-Appellees YOLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. are represented by: Farhad Novian, Esq. Lauren Woodland, Esq. Matthew Joseph Novian, Esq. NOVIAN & NOVIAN, LLP 1801 Century Park, E Suite 1201 Los Angeles, CA 90067 SODEXO INC: Faces Malone Suit Over ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------- JOHN MALONE; and CLIFFORD TODD HANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SODEXO, INC.; THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SODEXO 401(K) EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN AND TRUST; and JANE and JOHN DOES 1–25, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02508-MJM (D. Md., June 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allowed the Plan's recordkeeper, Voya Financial, Inc., to receive excessive compensation through: (1) direct, "hard dollar," fees the Plan paid to Voya; (2) indirect, "soft dollar," fees paid by non-Voya managed mutual funds; and (3) float interest, freedom to market rollover-materials to Plan participants, and other forms of indirect compensation. The Defendants' fiduciary obligations under ERISA require that they ensure, at all times, that Plan assets are never used for the benefit of the employer, and that they scrupulously avoid any transaction in which Plan assets would be transferred to, used by, or inure to the benefit of, a party in interest, such as the Company and Voya, in connection with the Plan. The Defendants' fiduciary obligations under ERISA also require that they ensure, at all times, that the fees paid by the Plan are not more than reasonable, alleges the suit. Sodexo, Inc. provides outsourced food services. The Company offers catering, facilities management, employee benefits, and personal home services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cary L. Joshi, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: cjoshi@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com - and - Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 34 N. Gore Avenue, Suite 102 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 863-5446 Facsimile: (314) 863-5483 Email: mboyko@baileyglasser.com - and - Laura E. Babiak, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 Email: lbabiak@baileyglasser.com - and - Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 318 W. Adams St., Suite 1512 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 500-8680 Facsimile: (314) 342-1110 Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com SOUTH32 HERMOSA: Goodnough Seeks Unpaid & OT Wages Under AWA, FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Goodnough, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. South32 Hermosa Inc., a Nevada corporation, Case No. 4:26-cv-00325-JEM (D. Ariz., June 24, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from South32 pursuant to the Arizona Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. South32 employed Goodnough as one of its Hourly Employees. Goodnough and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, South32 does not pay Goodnough and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, South32 rounds Goodnough's and the other Hourly Employees' hours to reflect only their prescheduled shifts. South32 rounds these employees' hours to reflect only their prescheduled shifts despite the fact they regularly work more, for its primary benefit and to the detriment of the Hourly Employees, says the suit. South32 employed Goodnough as a maintenance tech from May 2025 until February 2026.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe Street, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe Street, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Oakley Class Suit in E.D. Va. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategic Education, Inc. The case is captioned as Sadonna Oakley individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Strategic Education, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01529-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va., June 3, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Anthony J Trenga. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract demanding $5,000,000,000 in damages. The Defendant is an education services holding company headquartered in Herndon, Virginia Strategic Education, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R Carroll, Esq. COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP 3311 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 999-9999 E-mail: scarroll@hurtinva.com STRIDES PHARMA: Settles Testosterone Gel Class Suit for $750,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Strides Pharma has agreed to a settlement of at least $750,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the company manufactured and distributed testosterone gel containing benzene, a human carcinogen. The Strides class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 21, 2026. The deal covers all natural individuals in the United States who purchased Strides testosterone gel for personal or household use between June 1, 2022 and July 31, 2025. The court-approved website for the Strides testosterone gel settlement can be found at StridesGelSettlement.com. The website states that the Strides settlement covers approximately 95,000 people. Strides settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive a cash payment from the deal. The amount of each class member's payment will depend on when they purchased the product: -- For purchases made between January 1, 2025 and July 31, 2025, class members can receive 100 percent reimbursement for out-of-pocket payments for each prescription; -- For purchases made between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024, class members can receive 75 percent reimbursement for out-of-pocket payments for each prescription; and -- For purchases made between June 1, 2022 and December 31, 2023, class members can receive 40 percent reimbursement for out-of-pocket payments for each prescription. Class members who incurred no out-of-pocket payments for prescriptions they purchased during the relevant time period can receive $3.50 per prescription, as modified by the aforementioned percentages based on purchase dates. The final value of each class member's payout may be higher should the total value of all valid claims not reach the $750,000 amount. Class members must provide sufficient proof, including pharmacy or insurance records and receipts, to receive a class action settlement payment. The settlement website adds that, as part of the deal, Strides has reformulated its testosterone gel to "address the underlying issue" and has agreed to continued testing to ensure benzene-contaminated testosterone gel is not sold in the future. To file a Strides settlement claim form, class members can head to this page and select whether they would prefer to file a claim form online or download a personalized claim form to print and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Strides testosterone settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by September 16, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Strides testosterone gel class action settlement following a hearing on November 19, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Strides class action lawsuit alleged that the pharmaceutical manufacturer failed to meet regulatory requirements because the testosterone gel was made with Carbomer 940, which contains benzene, and contained the carcinogen in excess of the applicable limit. [GN] SUNRUN INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Stone Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRUN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05708 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending marketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Sunrun, Inc. is a residential solar energy company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. Ashley LaPointe, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com ashley@kazlg.com SYNGENTA CROP: Lemmings Sues Over Toxic Paraquat Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES F. LEMMINGS; and ROBIN LEMMINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC; and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-06-268 PQT (Del. Ch., June 23, 2026) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC provides crop protection chemical products and agricultural services. The Company produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management, seeds, and research and development services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: Raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7728 Facsimile: (401) 457-7708 Email: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howington Due Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWINGTON, et al., v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05684-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge DeMarchi entered an order extending case management deadlines as follows: Deadline for completion of fact Nov. 6, 2026 discovery relevant for class certification, including depositions: The Plaintiffs file class Dec. 1, 2026 certification motion: The Defendants file opposition to Feb. 2, 2027 class certification: The Plaintiffs file reply re class March 23, 2027 Certification: Hearing on the plaintiffs' class April 13, 2027, certification motion: 10:00 a.m The Defendant is a Taiwanese multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uu5zia at no extra charge.[CC] TAQUERIA EL: Faces Toj Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTO TOJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAQUERIA EL CEBOLLIN CORP. (d/b/a TAQUERIA EL CEBOLLIN), and FELICIANO VERA ANDRADE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05000 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide proper wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unlawful wage deductions, and failure to timely pay wages. Mr. Toj was employed as a driver, food preparer, delivery worker and dishwasher at Taqueria El Cebollin from approximately August 2024 until on or about January 2026. Taqueria El Cebollin Corp., doing business as Taqueria El Cebollin, is a Mexican restaurant owner and operator, located at 587 Southern Blvd., Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TARGET CORP: Wipe Products Contain Burkholderia, Murgolo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Murgolo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 7:26-cv-05310 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Target with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Up & Up baby wipe product throughout the state of New York and throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with harmful bacteria, burkholderia cepacia and burkholderia gladioli. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated certainly expect that the baby wipes products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause severe disease and even be life threatening, the suit says. Target is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. Target operates retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com TERRAVEST INDUSTRIES: SMK Law Investigates Possible Investors' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SMK Law P.C., a Canadian investor rights law firm is investigating a class action on behalf of investors in TerraVest Industries Inc. (TSX: TVK). On June 5, 2026, Le Journal de Montreal reported that the Autorite des marches financiers suspects Charles Pellerin, TerraVest's Executive Chairman, of having shared confidential information with others which allowed them to make illicit gains in the stock. Following this news, TerraVest's share price fell approximately 30%. If you have suffered losses in your TerraVest shares and would like to learn more about the investigation or your eligibility, please contact SMK Law by email at info@smklawyers.ca or by filling out this contact form. You do not incur any costs by contacting us and there are no obligations in connection with the potential class action. About SMK Law P.C. SMK Law P.C. is a Canadian investor rights law firm representing institutional and individual investors. The firm is led by Soheil Karkhanechi who has decades of leadership experience in the securities and asset management industries in Canada and the US. Soheil Karkhanechi, Esq. SMK Law P.C. (416) 551-7346 soheil@smklawyers.ca www.smklawyers.ca [GN] TESLA INC: Molina Contamination Suit Removed to S.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JO MOLINA and JESUS MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026CCV-60669-4, was removed from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00167 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Tesla owns and operates a lithium hydroxide refinery located in Nueces County, Texas, and further allege that Tesla discharged contaminated wastewater from the Refinery into an unnamed drainage ditch in the Baffin Bay Watershed, which flows into Petronila Creek and ultimately into Baffin Bay. The Plaintiffs contend that the discharge contained a number of contaminants that were not authorized under Tesla's Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System wastewater discharge permit. Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Craig B. Florence, Esq. David G. Cabrales, Esq. Rick Ali, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1600 Dallas, TX 75201-3340 Telephone: (214) 999-3000 Facsimile: (214) 000-4667 E-mail: cflorence@foley.com rick.ali@foley.com - and - Michael D. Leffel, Esq. Amber R. Quinlan Willette, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 E Gilman Street, Suite 5000 Madison, WI 53703-1482 Telephone: (608) 258-4235 Facsimile: (608) 258-4258 E-mail: mleffel@foley.com amber.quinlanwillette@foley.com - and - Jon T. Pearson, Esq. D. Seth Fortenbery, Esq. TESLA, INC. 1 Tesla Road Austin, TX 78725 Telephone: (512) 516-8177 E-mail: jonpearson@tesla.com sfortenbery@tesla.com TEXAS CAPITAL: Faces Ahmadinia Class Suit in N.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Capital Bancshares Inc. The case is captioned as Sarah Ahmadinia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texas Capital Bancshares Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01840-X (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr. The nature of suit states Torts / Other Personal Injury. TCBI is the parent company of Texas Capital Bank, a prominent financial institution serving businesses, entrepreneurs, and individuals. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and founded in 1996, the company operates under CEO Rob C. Holmes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM LLP 5621 S Arch Bridge Ct Arlington, TX 76017 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com TEXOLLINI INC: Cota Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texollini Inc. The case is styled as Rose Mary Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texollini Inc., Case No. 26STCV18970 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." Texollini -- http://www.texollini.com-- is a Textile Manufacturing, Manufacturing General, and Clothing company located in Long Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Lee, Esq. 865 South Figueroa Street 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5003 TIKTOK INC: Mortazi Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN MORTAZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIKTOK INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06371 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, and California Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the private information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on June 11, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TikTok Inc. is an internet technology and social media company headquartered in Culver City, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com TOTAL RENAL: McCracken Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MCCRACKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC.; and DOES 1 20, inclusive, Case No. 26-00002-16681-1 (Filed May 20, 2026), 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 at Seattle on June 22, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02167 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that she and putative class members were not provided with and were not paid for noncompliant meal and rest periods. She asserts that she and the putative class were denied meal breaks "at times," including "once or twice a week during pay periods beginning on the following dates: March 17, 2024, March 31, 2024, April 14, 2024, April 28, 2024, and May 12, 2024." The Plaintiff further alleges that "when Class Members worked three (3) or more hours beyond their normal workday, they did not receive a second meal period." Total Renal is a wholly-owned subsidiary and the former legal name of DaVita Inc., one of the largest kidney care and dialysis providers in the United States. The company formally changed its name to DaVita in 2000 to reflect a mission-driven approach to healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: jamie@crosnerlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Eliza Whitworth, 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: bsmartell@littler.com ewhitworth@littler.com TRULIANT FEDERAL: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages --------------------------------------------------- Chloe Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRULIANT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00557-DAB-JGM (M.D.N.C., June 16, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("North Carolina Wage Act") as a result of unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its Representatives for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This policy resulted in Representatives 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 its Representatives for the substantial time they spent performing essential work tasks prior to clocking into and after clocking out of Defendant's timekeeping system each shift, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt collections specialist from January 2025, through March 2025. Truliant Federal Credit Union is federally chartered credit union organized and existing under the laws of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com - and - Jason Thompson, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com TULANE UNIVERSITY: Ritzman Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Nathan Ritzman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:26-cv-01291-SM-EJD (E.D. La., June 16, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was compromised as a result of a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). In the course of its regular business operations, Defendant collects and stores a substantial amount of PII belonging to its current and former employees and students. Defendant has a resulting duty to ensure the PII it maintains is safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII--rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Defendant's failure to report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect the PII in its care and failing to adequately notify victims about the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former employees, students, and others. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former student of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. Tulane is a private, non-profit university located in New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY, PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Phone: (919) 585-4634 Email: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com ULTA BEAUTY: Moran Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ AUSTIN TYLER MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06929 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending marketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Ulta Beauty, Inc. is a provider of beauty products headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Email: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: JBarrett@baileyglasser.com JKauffman@baileyglasser.com UNITED EDUCATORS: Denial of Hofstra Dismissal Affirmed on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Hofstra University, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. United Educators, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, Index No. 653697/24, Appeal No. 6829, Case No. 2025-02023 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, (i) affirmed the ruling of Judge Lyle E. Frank of the Supreme Court, New York County, that money paid by students as tuition and fees qualifies as "funds" under the insurance policies; and (ii) also upheld the denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Appellate Division held that the insurance policies' exclusion for claims seeking the return of "funds" unambiguously includes money paid by students as tuition and fees. It also noted that the policies expressly exclude the value of tuition and scholarships from the definition of damages. As a result, the policies do not cover claims seeking reimbursement of tuition and fees while remaining enforceable for other covered losses. However, the Appellate Division found that the underlying lawsuits seek more than just reimbursement of tuition and fees. Because the complaints also request compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and other relief, it held that it was premature to dismiss the coverage action based on the policy exclusion at this stage, as the record did not establish that the only damages sought were the return of tuition and fees. The Appellate Division rejected the Defendant's argument that public policy bars coverage because the underlying claims involve allegedly wrongfully acquired funds. It also held that the Defendant's duty to defend was triggered because the underlying class actions seek damages beyond reimbursement of tuition and fees, creating the possibility of coverage under the policies. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://lnk.ua/SSkqBq01I. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, New York (Michael S. Levine -- mlevine@hunton.com -- of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Ansa Assuncao, LLP, White Plains (Ronald P. Schiller -- rschiller@hangley.com -- of counsel), for respondent-appellant. UNITED PARCEL: Arbitration Order in Orr Vacated on Mandamus ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: REBECCA ORR. REBECCA ORR, Petitioner. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE, Respondent. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. (DELAWARE), Real Party in Interest, Case No. 25-2330 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Orr's petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its order compelling arbitration of her individual claims against UPS. The petition for a writ of mandamus arises from a lawsuit Orr filed against her former employer, UPS. UPS moved to compel arbitration under an employment agreement Orr signed when applying for her job. The parties dispute whether the agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or the California Arbitration Act (CAA), a distinction that could affect how the arbitration dispute is resolved. UPS hired Orr as a temporary Seasonal Support Driver in late 2023 to assist with increased holiday deliveries. In that role, Orr picked up packages from other UPS drivers and delivered them to their final destinations. When applying for the position, Orr signed an Arbitration Agreement/Seasonal Hiring Agreement through UPS's online application portal. The agreement included a delegation clause giving the arbitrator exclusive authority to decide issues concerning the agreement's validity and enforceability, a class action waiver requiring claims to be brought individually, a provision requiring Private Attorneys General Act claims to be arbitrated on an individual basis, and a choice-of-law provision stating that the agreement is governed by the FAA unless the FAA does not apply to the dispute or the parties. After beginning work as a Seasonal Support Driver, Orr alleges that UPS repeatedly shortened or canceled her scheduled delivery routes without notice, despite initially informing her that she would work eight hours a day, six days a week. After being told that one cancellation was due to a lack of packages, Orr received no further assignments for the remainder of her employment despite repeatedly requesting available work. Orr filed suit against UPS in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, asserting five state-law claims, including several brought on behalf of three putative classes alleging that UPS failed to provide required reporting time pay to Seasonal Support Drivers. She later amended her complaint to add a sixth claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). UPS removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and moved to compel arbitration and stay the litigation. The district court granted the motion, ordering Orr to arbitrate her individual claims and staying the class claims pending arbitration. The court concluded that it need not decide whether the FAA or the CAA governed because the result would be the same under either statute, and held that Orr forfeited any challenge to the agreement's delegation clause by failing to argue that it was unenforceable under California law. Orr moved for clarification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b), arguing that the district court's arbitration order was flawed. She contended that the court was required to determine whether the arbitration agreement fell within the FAA's exemption in 9 U.S.C. Section 1, and that, under the agreement's delegation clause, the court lacked authority to decide whether her substantive claims were subject to arbitration. The district court denied Orr's motion for clarification, explaining that its prior order did not decide issues of arbitrability because those issues were delegated to the arbitrator. The court further held that it properly declined to determine whether the FAA's Section 1 exemption or the CAA applied, reasoning that the CAA does not require resolving those questions before compelling arbitration. Orr petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, arguing that she could not directly appeal the district court's order compelling arbitration because neither the FAA nor the CAA permits an immediate appeal from an order granting arbitration. In deciding whether to issue a writ of mandamus, the Ninth Circuit considered five factors in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977): whether the petitioner has any other adequate means of obtaining relief, whether the petitioner would suffer harm that could not be corrected on appeal, whether the district court clearly erred as a matter of law, whether the ruling reflects a recurring error or persistent disregard of the law, and whether it presents a new or important legal issue. Addressing the third Bauman factor, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court clearly erred by compelling arbitration without first determining whether the FAA applied. Citing New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, the court explained that a district court, not an arbitrator, must decide whether the FAA's Section 1 employment-contract exemption applies before ordering arbitration. By leaving that threshold issue to the arbitrator, the district court improperly delegated a question that it was required to decide itself. Regarding the first Bauman factor, the Ninth Circuit held that Orr lacked an adequate alternative remedy because no immediate, ordinary appeal was available from the district court's order compelling arbitration. Addressing the second Bauman factor, the Ninth Circuit held that Orr would suffer prejudice that could not be corrected on appeal. The court explained that the district court failed to identify the legal basis for compelling arbitration and that Orr could be irreparably harmed by arbitrating under the wrong legal framework if the court did not first determine whether the FAA or California arbitration law governed the agreement. Because Orr satisfied the first three Bauman factors, including the critical showing of clear legal error, the Ninth Circuit granted her petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to determine the proper statutory basis for its authority to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/nM0gRypG7. Vladmir J. Kozina (argued) -- vjkozina@mayallaw.com -- Robert J. Wassermann -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- and Jenny D. Baysinger -- jbaysinger@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley PC, Lodi, California, for Petitioner. Elizabeth A. Falcone (argued) -- elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Portland, Oregon; Robert Vorhees -- robert.vorhees@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Costa Mesa, California; for Real Party in Interest. UNITED STATES: Combined Joint Status Report Due August 11 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW BOSWELL, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:26-cv-00110-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order setting the following dates for initial disclosures and submission of the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan: Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: July 14, 2026 Initial disclosures pursuant to July 28, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(1): Combined joint status report and Aug. 11, 2026 discovery plan as required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): Any request for an extension of the deadlines above must comply with the procedures set forth in this Court's Standing Order for All Civil Cases. The Plaintiffs and any Defendants who have appeared shall meet and confer before contacting the Court to request an extension and include a certification as to this requirement with any opposed motion. This District has adopted a resolution "approving the Task Force's recommendation that court−connected ADR services be provided as early, effectively, and economically as possible in every suitable case." If settlement is achieved, Counsel shall immediately notify Kadya Peter, Courtroom Deputy, at kadya_peter@wawd.uscourts.gov. The Defendant is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal capital district, Washington, D.C. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xsQStW at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Rodgers Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RODGERS, ASAAD ABRAH RAHAMA, and those similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-03971-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to: -- Order that within 21 days of the Court's certification order, the Defendant shall produce a class list containing the names, mail and e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of the following Collective Members to the Administrator: "All non-exempt TSA employees who performed work during the 2025 federal government shutdown or the 2026 DHS Shutdown and received $0 in wages on any regular payday for work performed during the shutdowns." -- Approve the Notice and Consent to Join forms attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. -- Order the following notice procedures: a. Within 14 days of receipt of the collective member list, the Administrator shall send the approved notice forms via E-mail and text message; b. Class Members shall have 90 days to join the Collective Action if they choose to do so; c. The third-party administrator shall conduct skip-tracing and other reasonable efforts to locate, communicate with, and provide the Notices to any Collective Members via first class mail whose electronic Notice Forms are returned undeliverable; and d. The Plaintiffs' counsel may conduct constitutionally protected, non-misleading, attorney advertising to alert Class Members of their right to join this action. This case is about Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") employees not getting paid by their employer, the Defendant United States of America, on their regular pay days for time worked during the 2025 federal government shutdown and the 2026 Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") shutdown. The Defendant is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal capital district, Washington, D.C. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i9K0V6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Seligman, Esq. Alexander Hood, Esq. Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 N. Logan St Ste. 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80203-1994 Telephone: (970) 410-1161 E-mail: David@towardsjustice.org alex@towardsjustice.org victoria@towardsjustice.org VALVOLINE LLC: Curtin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Samantha Curtin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALVOLINE LLC; a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 26-2-00251-15 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington at Island County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02094. The Complaint alleges: failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages due; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; unlawful deductions and rebates; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful refusal to pay wages. The Complaint seeks damages for all alleged Revised Code of Washington ("RCW") and Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") violations and attorney fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Winthrop Hubbard, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 1215 4th Ave., Suite 1630 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (360) 207-0000 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawscorp.com whubbard@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Catharine M. Morisset, Esq. Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. Meghan McNabb, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-2308 Facsimile: (206) 682-7908 Email: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com mmcnabb@fisherphillips.com VIRTA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Morgan Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONICE MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRTA HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02591 (D. Colo., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around March 29, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Virta Health Corporation is a digital health company based in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com WALGREENS BOOTS: Klein Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE KLEIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Steve Klein, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01058, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Sept. 19, 2025. On May 12, 2026, Judge Joan H. Lefkow entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Steve Klein, et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-2254, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 11, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVE KLEIN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Austin P. Van, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com avan@pomlaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com Defendants-Appellees WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., et al. are represented by: Renato Thomas Mariotti, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive, 45th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 499-6005 Email: renatomariotti@paulhastings.com - and - Jennifer L. Conn, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 318-6004 Email: jenniferconn@paulhastings.com - and - Kenneth P. Herzinger, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7040 Email: kennethherzinger@paulhastings.com WALT DISNEY: $50MM Deal in Streaming Suit Final Hearing Set Jan. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased a YouTube TV or DirecTV Stream subscription at any time from April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2026, may qualify to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. The Walt Disney Co. agreed to pay $50 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws by engaging in conduct that raised the prices of streaming live pay television services. The plaintiffs claimed these actions caused financial harm to subscribers. Who can file a claim for a Disney settlement payout? Class members are individuals, business association, entity or corporation who meet one or more of the following criteria: -- They purchased a YouTube TV subscription between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2026. -- They purchased a DirecTV streaming live pay TV subscription, including DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now and AT&T TV Now, between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2026. The settlement divides class members into two categories based on where they lived during the class period: -- Repealer jurisdictions: Class members who lived in any of the following states or territories at any time between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2026: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. -- Non-repealer jurisdictions: Class members who lived in any other state or U.S. territory not listed above between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2026. How much are settlement payments? -- Repealer jurisdiction cash payment: Class members residing in a repealer jurisdiction state or territory can submit a claim for a pro rata cash payment from 90% of the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of subscriptions claimed and the length of each subscription during the class period. -- Non-repealer jurisdiction cash payment: Class members residing in a non-repealer jurisdiction state or territory can submit a claim for a pro rata cash payment from 10% of the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of subscriptions claimed and the length of each subscription during the class period. If a class member paid for YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream subscriptions during the class period, they can claim both subscriptions. 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: Biddle v. Disney Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4720, Portland, OR 97208-4720 The claim deadline is Sept. 8, 2026. Required claim information To submit a claim online, class members must provide the unique ID and PIN from the official settlement notice they received. The settlement administrator may contact claimants for additional information if needed and may use data provided by YouTube and/or DirecTV to validate claims. -- Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- ACH Settlement fund breakdown The $50,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $15,000,000 -- Attorneys' costs: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to submit a claim form: Sept. 8, 2026 -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 8, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Jan. 14, 2027 When is the Disney TV streaming settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged The Walt Disney Co. violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws by engaging in practices that raised the prices of streaming live pay TV services. The plaintiffs claimed these actions resulted in higher costs for certain YouTube TV and DirecTV subscribers. Disney denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata cash payment Deadline: September 8, 2026 [GN] WALT DISNEY: YouTube TV Subscribers Eligible in Antitrust Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Mwai, writing for al.com, reports that if you are subscribed to YouTube TV or DirecTV Stream, may be eligible for a cash payment in a settlement from an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company. Disney agreed to pay $50 million to settle claims that it forced YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream to raise their subscription prices. The lawsuit alleged this violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Disney denies any wrongdoing. Who can file a claim? Anyone who had a YouTube TV or DirecTV Stream subscription between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2026 is eligible for the settlement. Class members are divided into two groups: "Repealer Jurisdictions" and "Non-Repealer Jurisdictions." Repealer Jurisdictions include all persons in including Alabama, New York, California, Florida and 36 other states. Non-Repealer Jurisdictions include class members living in all remaining states and territories. Settlement class members must submit a valid claim form to receive a cash payment based on how long they subscribed to YouTube TV or DirecTV Stream. Claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by Sept. 8, 2026, and can be found on the Online TV Settlement website. Individuals who want to exclude themselves from the settlement must do so by Sept. 8, 2026. A request must be mailed to the settlement administrator at the following address: Biddle v. Disney, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4720, Portland, OR 97208-4720. How much will I get? The settlement administrator will finalize details of the cash payout once all claims have been submitted. The amount will depend on the number of valid claims. A final hearing is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2027, where a judge will decide whether to approve the settlement. If approved, payments would be distributed after that date. [GN] WESTERN UNION: Forfeits $586MM as Part of Fraud Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Western Union agreed to forfeit $586 million as part of a 2017 settlement with federal authorities resolving allegations that fraudsters used the company's money transfer services to carry out scams, including grandparent and lottery schemes that tricked consumers into wiring money. The Western Union settlement benefits consumers who sent a money transfer through Western Union between Jan. 1, 2004, and March 9, 2020, and were victims of fraud. According to an investigation by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Western Union was aware that fraudsters were using its services to scam consumers out of their money. Despite this knowledge, Western Union allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to protect consumers from wire transfer fraud. Western Union is a money transfer service that allows consumers to send money to friends, family and businesses around the world. Western Union has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to forfeit $586 million as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. The company simultaneously resolved the FTC's civil investigation. Phase three of remission payments are now available for claims. Under the terms of phase three of the Western Union settlement, claimants can collect a cash payment based on the amount they lost to wire transfer fraud. Payments will vary depending on the number of eligible claimants and the amount each claimant lost to fraud. There is no exclusion or objection deadline for this remission agreement. The deferred prosecution agreement was reached on Jan. 19, 2017. To receive a settlement payment, claimants must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 19, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who sent a money transfer through Western Union between Jan. 1, 2004, and March 9, 2020, and were victims of fraud may be eligible for a remission payment. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase 10-digit Money Transfer Control Numbers (MTCNs) from eligible Western Union transfers Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/19/2026 Case Name United States of America v. The Western Union Company, Case No. 1:17-cr-00011-CCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Final Hearing 01/19/2017 Settlement Website WesternUnionRemissionPhase3.com Claims Administrator United States v. The Western Union Company Phase 3 P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 info@westernunionremissionphase3.com (833) 419-4677 Class Counsel N/A Defense Counsel Alice S. Fisher LATHAM & WATKINS LLP [GN] WYSSTA SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Data Tracking Suit for $12.67MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Wyssta Services has agreed to a $12,670,284 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the vision and dental insurance claims administrator secretly embedded advertising and analytics tracking technologies on a website it operates for Delta Dental plan members without users' knowledge or consent. The $12.67 million Wyssta Services class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 7, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States who, between January 23, 2021 and January 23, 2025, held an account on the online healthcare portal located at my.deltadentalcoversme.com. Court documents estimate that 767,896 individuals are covered by the Wyssta settlement. The court-approved website for the Wyssta Services class action settlement can be found at WysstaServicesClassAction.com. Wyssta settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a cash payment of up to $16.50. To submit a Wyssta Services claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Wyssta Services settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than August 20, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Wyssta Services settlement final approval following a hearing on September 9, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Wyssta Services class action lawsuit alleged that the health insurance administration company implemented analytics technologies, cookies and tracking pixels on a website it operates for Delta Dental plan members without their knowledge or consent, in violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Illinois Eavesdropping Law. [GN] XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Pesonal, Health Info, Mathews Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XSOLIS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00839 (M.D. Tenn., June 22, 2026) is a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and Protected Health Information who were impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On January 22, 2026, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity within its systems and engaged external cybersecurity professionals to assist in an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor acquired certain files containing sensitive information maintained by Defendant, says the suit. The Defendant is a healthcare technology company that provides case and utilization management services to healthcare organizations. Defendant is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, 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: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com ZARA USA: Trocchio Suit Seeks Refund of Unlawful Tariffs -------------------------------------------------------- LYNNEA TROCCHIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZARA USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05009-VM (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The case arises from the Defendant's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of the Defendant systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers, including the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to restitution or disgorgement in an amount to be proved at trial, suit says. Zara USA Inc. is a manufacturer of apparel and fashion products based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Danielle M. Sweet, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St., Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com dsweet@stephanzouras.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 ***