260701.mbx

260701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 1, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 130 Headlines ABC CORPORATION: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ABV DINER INC: Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ACEOLUTION INC: Misclassifies Drivers, Thomas Suit Says AL PIEMONTE NISSAN: Arman Files Suit in D. Illinois ALBERT CORP: Vickery Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices AMAZON ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Patients' Records AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Front Camera Failures AMERICAN PLASTICS: Rose Seeks Production Associates' Unpaid Wages AMPLIFY ENERGY SERVICES: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AOD FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $750,000 ARANGO INSULATION: Valderrama Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ARISTOTLE PSYCHOLOGICAL: Faces Rendon Suit Over Unpaid Wages ARROW INTERNATIONAL: James Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ASSETMARK INC: Warburton Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ATLANTIC CASUALTY: Clean Ice Suit Removed to S.D. Florida AXION DATA SERVICES: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BALLY'S INTERACTIVE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach BAYAMON MEDICAL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Data Breach Class Suit BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Gardella Sues Over Breach of Implied Warranty BAYOU TITLE INC: Luckett Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana BEACH 2 OCEAN CORP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Suit Seeks Class Certification BETTER U INC: Reed Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California BHC SIERRA VISTA: Salgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BILL GILBERT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 15 BLOCK INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response Sur-Reply BOBO'S FORDHAM BRONX: Gramajos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Filing for Renewed Class Cert. Bid Due July 2 BOYD BROS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims BRAND EVANGELISTS: Selby Sues Over False and Misleading Claims BRIAN KEMP: Gordon Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia BRYAN BEDFORD: Lasky Suit Transferred to D. Columbia CANPOTEX LIMITED: Jason Buckman Suit Transferred to D. Kansas CANPOTEX LTD: Vohs Suit Transferred to D. Kansas CAPITAL CITY: Petty Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CAPITAL ONE: Tracking Technology Suit Fails to Secure Class Status CARDINAL HEALTH: Advantage Medical Sues Over Facsimile Transmission CARGURUS INC: Vincent Suit Removed to N.D. California CATALYST BRANDS: Hudson Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit CENTURY LINEN & UNIFORM: Howard Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. CF INDUSTRIES: Gilman Feed Suit Transferred to D. Kansas CHEROKEE NATION: Rodriguez-Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Wages CIGNA GROUP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Snyder Due Oct. 14 CITIZENS TELECOM: Stuart Suit Removed to C.D. California CLAYTON & CRUME: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CLUTTER INC: Davis Suit Removed to C.D. California COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Barnett Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Delvalle Files Suit in S.D. Florida CONSOLVA FUNDING: Wise Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California COVE SMART LLC: Mays Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee COYOACAN TAQUERIA: Walker Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation CREDIT PROS: Pilavian Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach CRIMSON WINE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $637,500 DELTA DENTAL: Henneberg Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DIRECT DIGITAL: Sanchez Suit Removed to N.D. California DTLA HOTEL MANAGEMENT: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FEDCAP GROUP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FERKO'S FINE JEWELRY: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIRST RELIANCE: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Colony Bankshares FORTESCUE METALS: Female Miners Launch Sexual Harassment Suit FOXCONN/HON HAI: Romero Suit Removed to N.D. California FURNITURE MART: Class Settlement in Logan Suit Gets Initial Nod FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Class Cert. Bid in Herrera Due June 15, 2027 GAMESTOP CORP: Pontiac GERS Files Suit Over CEO Compensation Award GAMETIME INC: Agrees to Settle Hidden Fees Class Action for $2.74MM GENEDX HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Urges Claim Forms' Submission GOOD BACTERIA INC: Navarette Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal GREIF INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Ryan Suit Due Feb. 26, 2027 HAAR COMPANY: Duran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARTFORD, CT: Wright Seeks Final Approval of Settlement HIGH TIDE COFFEE: Dancourt Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HUMACYTE INC: Parties Must Submit Supplemental Report by July 2 IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California IMPERFECT FOODS: Quiros Sues Over Automatic Renewing Subscription IQVIA RDS INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California JACK IN THE BOX: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by July 6 JACK LU: Pagan Sues Over Misrepresented Product Attributes JAVVY COFFEE: Rodriguez Sues Over Automatic Renewing Subscription JOHN E. RIFE: Soumare Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania KALIBRATE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Fuel Pricing Software KANSAS CITY CANNABIS: Faces Class Suit Over 'Cashless ATM' Scheme KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Electrical System Defect LA LASER CENTER: Agrees to Settle Employment Suit for $985,000 LEGION CONTRACTORS: Rosas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LIFELINE EDUCATION: Hutchinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: BC Court Certifies Data Breach Class Suits MANATEE MEMORIAL: McClain Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida MANSUETO VENTURES: Williams Balks at Illegal Data Collection MARZ FARMS INC: Juarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARZ FARMS INC: Trejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MCLANE COMPANY: Osborne Suit Removed to W.D. Washington META PLATFORMS: Judge Denies Summary Judgement in Privacy Suit MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Bisquera Sues Over Deceptive Practices MOOG MILITARY AIRCRAFT: Madrigal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MRO CORP: Reynero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages NATIONAL WELLNESS CENTERS: Fritts Files Suit in D. Arizona NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS: Drohman Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN AG: Hatfield Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN AG: Live Oak Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN AG: Rumbold Price-Fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. NUTRIEN AG: Stevens Price-Fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Stone Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. PADSPLIT INC: Phillips TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida PAQ INC: Pablo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PATHWARD NATIONAL: McAuley Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania PLANNED PARENTHOOD: C.B. Sues Over Online Data Tracking PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE: Skellie Files Suit in S.D. California PRIORITY MANAGEMENT: Rogers Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PRN AMBULANCE LLC: McElrath Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PSC GROUP LLC: Foster Suit Removed to N.D. California RALPH LAUREN RETAIL: Depetro Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. RECO PEV LIMITED: Abbasi Suit Removed to N.D. California RESOLVE FIRST FINANCIAL: Kelley Files Suit in N.D. Texas RIP VAN INC: Brown Files Suit in S.D. New York RIVIERA FINANCE: Pimentel Files Suit in S.D. Florida ROCKET MORTGAGE: Fedoroff Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ROYO BREAD: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Calorie Content SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE: Blakely Suit Removed to E.D. California SAVINGS BANK MUTUAL: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California SAVVY INSURANCE: Stogden Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California SMITH & WESSON: Court Allows Mass Shooting Class Suit to Proceed SOLVENTUM CORPORATION: Brown Files Suit in D. Minnesota STAFFING SYNERGIES: Sutton Suit Removed to C.D. California STERLING HEALTHCARE: Tuminella Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Sheridan Files Suit in E.D. Virginia STRATEGY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims STRYKER CORP: Bids to Dismiss Cyberattack Consolidated Class Suit SUJIT BANERJEE: Fortis Advisors Suit Removed to D. Oregon SYSTEM TRANSPORT INC: Diaz Suit Removed to C.D. California TALBOTS LLC: Carter Suit Removed to N.D. California TD BANK NA: Brady Suit Removed to E.D. New York THG NUTRITION US: Ahmed TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida THRIFTY RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Williams Says TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP: Peterson Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington TRUIST FINANCIAL: Arauz Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination U.S. BANK: Kline Suit Removed to D. Maryland UNCLE G'S: Terlato Seeks to Recover Managers' Unpaid OT Wages UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC: Rebardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNION HOME MORTGAGE: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Texas UPBOOST FUNDING: Andrews Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California VEOLIA SUSTAINABLE: Horton Suit Removed to N.D. California VICTORY PACKAGING: Chevry Suit Removed to C.D. California WOODSIDE AUTO PARTS: Andreasova Sues Over Unpaid Wages YOUR GRANT ADVISOR: Delaney Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey [] B.C. Court of Appeal Allows Opioid Class Action to Proceed ********* ABC CORPORATION: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Rene Molina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. "ABC CORPORATION" d/b/a NDN LANDSCAPING, name of the corporation being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff, and NICHOLAS NUZZI JR. as an individual, Case No. 2:26-cv-03719 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2026), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although Plaintiff worked approximately between 78 to 84 hours per week during the relevant statutory period, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. As a direct result of Defendants' violations and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, Plaintiff suffered a concrete harm, resulting from Plaintiff's inability to identify Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation problems, lack of knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving and/or should have received for his regular hours and overtime hours, terms, and conditions of his pay, and furthermore, an inability to identify his hourly rate of pay to ascertain whether he was being properly paid in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL – which he was not. Furthermore, Defendants' alleged willful failures to provide Plaintiff with these documents prevented Plaintiff from being able to calculate his hours worked, and proper rates of pay, and determine if he was being paid time-and-a-half for his overtime hours as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a gardener and landscaper, responsible for cutting grass and trees from January 2013 until April 2026. "ABC CORPORATION" d/b/a NDN LANDSCAPING, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 ABV DINER INC: Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Valencia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ABV DINER INC. d/b/a NORTH SHORE DINER, VISARION FATSIS, and GIANNIS FATSIS, Case No. 1:26-cv-03801 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), he is entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day his work shift exceeded 10 hours, unpaid "gap time" wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. During this period, Plaintiff was paid, in cash, at the rate of $10 per hour straight time for all hours worked and worked 50 hours per week. Work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a policy of not paying the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or the New York State ove1time rate (of time and one-half), in direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt Valet for the Restaurant from 2014, until April 2026. ABV DINER INC., owns and operates a restaurant doing business as "North Shore Diner," located in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com ACEOLUTION INC: Misclassifies Drivers, Thomas Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- JAVARIS THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACEOLUTION INC. and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-07009 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026) is a collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks to represent other current and former misclassified drivers who worked for Aceolution and CTS in the United States. The complaint alleges that the Defendants knowingly and improperly fail to pay Drivers for all hours worked. Drivers who work for Defendants do not receive proper overtime pay. The Defendants' unlawful patterns, practices, and conduct apply broadly to members of the proposed collective, in violation of the FLSA, adds the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a driver in Alabama from approximately January 24, 2025, to May 9, 2025. Aceolution Inc. is a global, multi-service firm providing IT, consulting, and media solutions, including outsourcing, digital marketing, data services, and cybersecurity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Michael Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: crodriguez@bergermontague.com manderson@bergermontague.com - and - Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 666-4316 E-mail: mhussain@bergermontague.com AL PIEMONTE NISSAN: Arman Files Suit in D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Al Piemonte Nissan, Inc. The case is styled as Hazem Arman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Al Piemonte Nissan, Inc., Case No. 2026LA000850 (D. Ill., DuPage Cty., June 23, 2026). Al Piemonte Nissan, Inc. -- https://www.apnissan.com/ -- is a Nissan dealer offering new, used, and certified pre-owned vehicles, plus auto repairs, and a car wash.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 Fax: (314) 863-5711 Email: croberts@butschroberts.com ALBERT CORP: Vickery Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL VICKERY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERT CORPORATION, and ALBERT CASH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06492 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2026) seeks to protect Plaintiff and other active-duty military servicemembers from Albert's predatory lending practices that violate the Military Lending Act. According to the complaint, Albert has for years been in the business of payday lending through so called earned wage access (EWA) products -- it makes funds available to its customers, who repay Albert principal and finance charges (including expedite fees) on or just after payday. Its business model entails making high-frequency, short-term, and high-cost loans to consumers living paycheck to paycheck. During the relevant period, Albert took in triple-digit finance charges on its payday advances -- with annual percentage rates on some of its loans to Plaintiff as high as 347%. The end result is a financial product that extracts exorbitant fees from servicemembers and their families, encourages serial usage and dependence on the costly loans, worsens borrowers' financial circumstances, and traps them in a cycle of debt, says the suit. The Plaintiff used Albert's payday advance product while on active duty in the U.S. Navy. By virtue of the sky-high fees charged for borrowing against his anticipated earnings, Albert extended consumer credit to Plaintiff in violation of the MLA, the suit asserts. Albert Corporation provides financial technology solutions. The Company offers AI-powered financial assistant services, investment advisory and brokerage, and banking and savings account facilitation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com AMAZON ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Patients' Records --------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Diaz, writing for Becker's Health IT, reports that Amazon One Medical is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit in federal court following a data breach that exposed patient records at its senior care unit. The lawsuit, filed June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, names 1Life Healthcare, Inc., which does business as One Medical, as the defendant. Two Colorado residents who were former patients of One Medical Senior Health, formerly known as Iora Health, filed the complaint. One Medical disclosed June 17 that it learned on June 13 of unauthorized access to a third-party file storage system used to retain archived information from Iora Health, which it acquired in 2021. The potentially compromised information includes demographic and clinical records for some patients at designated One Medical Seniors clinics in Atlanta; Cape Cod, Mass.; Charlotte, N.C.; the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina; Denver; Houston; Phoenix; Tucson, Ariz.; and Seattle. A digital extortion group known as ShinyHunters has claimed responsibility for the breach, alleging it stole 8.8 terabytes of data and threatening to release it publicly. The plaintiffs allege One Medical failed to adequately protect patient data, including by not encrypting archived records, failing to implement multi-factor authentication and not properly overseeing third-party vendors. The lawsuit seeks damages and a court order requiring the company to strengthen its security practices. Five additional lawsuits raising similar claims have since been filed in the same court. Plaintiffs in all six cases have asked the court to assign them to a single judge. Becker's reviewed the court documents. When asked about the lawsuit, a One Medical spokesperson referred Becker's to the company's previously issued statement and security event notice. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Front Camera Failures ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Honda concealed and failed to remedy a defect in the front-facing cameras of certain 2018-2025 vehicles that can disable multiple driver-assistance and safety systems designed to prevent accidents. The 46-page complaint contends that American Honda Motor Co., Inc. has marketed model years 2018-2025 Odyssey, Civic, HR-V, Clarity, and Pilot vehicles as safe, reliable and equipped with advanced driver-assistance technology despite the automaker's alleged knowledge of a front camera defect that disables certain safety systems, inundates drivers with dashboard sensor alerts and reduces vehicle usability. According to the lawsuit, the affected vehicles share a substantially similar front camera sensor design as part of the Honda Sensing system, a package of safety technologies that includes forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, braking systems and other safety and driver-assistance features. The suit alleges that these features depend on proper operation of vehicle sensors, including the front camera system. The complaint claims that when the purported front camera defect manifests, it disables all Honda Sensing functions simultaneously, triggering a "cascade of simultaneous dashboard warning lights" related to collision mitigation braking, road departure, cruise control, parking brake systems and other safety features. The lawsuit argues that the resulting flood of warning messages can easily overwhelm drivers, distract them from the road and prevent them from recognizing other potentially critical vehicle alerts. More importantly, the suit alleges, drivers may unexpectedly lose access to key safety features intended to help prevent accidents, injury and damage. According to the complaint, the simultaneous failure of numerous systems indicates a defect in the vehicles' sensing architecture and/or centralized processing system. In other words, the filing claims, "the malfunction is not an isolated component issue but a systemic failure of the Honda Sensing platform itself." The lawsuit contends that Honda knew or should have known of the alleged defect before selling the vehicles through pre-production testing, engineering evaluations, and other industry-standard procedures. Even after the vehicles entered the market, the suit relays, the automaker was put on notice of the issue through consumer complaints, dealership repair records, warranty claims and reports submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Despite this alleged knowledge, the suit says Honda continued to sell and lease vehicles equipped with the same defective components while promoting them as safe, reliable and high quality, giving consumers the "false impression" that they are free from any defects that might impact safety or value. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the automaker has failed to offer an effective repair or other meaningful relief, including a recall, to affected owners and lessees. "The design of the system, which ties multiple safety features to a single sensing and processing architecture, coupled with the absence of a reliable fix, demonstrates that Honda failed to fulfill its responsibilities to ensure that its vehicles operate safely and as advertised," the filing stresses. The Honda class action lawsuit seeks to represent all persons and entities in the United States who purchased or leased a 2018–2025 model year Honda Odyssey, Civic, HR-V, Clarity, and/or Pilot vehicle. [GN] AMERICAN PLASTICS: Rose Seeks Production Associates' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRAYDON ROSE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PLASTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00706-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Wage Act. Named Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at its facility in Sycamore, Ohio, as an hourly, non-exempt employee as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act from approximately May 2025 until September 2025. Named Plaintiff worked for Defendant in the role of production associate. Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but were not paid at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 because of Defendant's unlawful policy or practice, says the suit. American Plastics, LLC owns, operates, and/or manages approximately 7 distribution centers, 14 facilities, and 2 innovation centers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com AMPLIFY ENERGY SERVICES: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amplify Energy Services LLC. The case is styled as Johnny Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amplify Energy Services LLC, Case No. 26STCV19869 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Amplify Energy -- https://www.amplifyenergy.com/home/default.aspx -- is an independent oil company focused on low decline, assets with significant upside.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com AOD FEDERAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $750,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that AOD Federal Credit Union has agreed to a $750,000 settlement to conclude a class action lawsuit that alleged the financial cooperative failed to protect sensitive information in its care from an August 2024 data breach. The $750,000 AOD Federal Credit Union class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 30, 2026. The deal covers all individuals whose private information may have been compromised in the August 2024 data breach. Court documents state that the class action settlement covers approximately 70,000 people. The court-approved website for the AOD Federal Credit Union data breach settlement can be found at AODFCUDataIncidentSettlement.com. AOD settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses stemming from the breach. This benefit covers losses resulting from fraud or identity theft. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, bills or other correspondence, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payout, class members can instead file a claim form to receive an estimated $75 cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of this payment may increase or decrease, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. In addition to either monetary benefit, all class members can file a claim to receive an enrollment code for two years of one-bureau credit monitoring. To file an AOD 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 AOD Federal Credit Union settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by September 1, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the AOD Federal Credit Union class action settlement following a hearing on September 16, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The AOD Federal Credit Union class action lawsuit alleged that the Alabama-based financial cooperative failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information on its systems, which allegedly led to a data breach between August 8, 2024 and August 9, 2024. Per court documents, private information potentially exposed during the breach included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, bank/ financial account numbers, routing numbers, credit/ debit card information, driver's license and government ID numbers, clinical information, health insurance member IDs and group numbers, and taxpayer ID numbers. [GN] ARANGO INSULATION: Valderrama Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Valderrama, and other similarly-situated individuals v. ARANGO INSULATION, INC., and LUIS ARANGO, individually, Case No. 6:26-cv-01352 (M.D. Fla., June 19, 2026), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). At times, Plaintiff worked over 60 hours per week. During his employment, Plaintiff was not paid for all of his overtime hours of work. Defendants employed a mathematical scheme whereby "on paper", it would appear as if employees were being compensated properly under the law for straight and overtime hours at the correct applicable rate. However, under the mathematical scheme, Defendants would pay their employees for all hours worked, including overtime, at their regular straight-time rate, and then make it appear "on paper" as if they were paid properly for overtime hours by falsifying or misrepresenting payroll and timesheet data and then "falling back on the numbers". Thus, Plaintiff is owed at least 6.67 hours of overtime each week. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid for all overtime hours, as required by law. Plaintiff clocked in and out, and Defendants controlled his schedule and activities. Thus, Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals were actually working. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and one half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a "Driver", performing duties involving the transportation of insulation material from the Defendants' warehouse to different jobsites. ARANGO INSULATION is a specialty insulation and construction contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Phone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com ARISTOTLE PSYCHOLOGICAL: Faces Rendon Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ALDO RENDON, on behalf of himself, Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. ARISTOTLE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BIOFEEDBACK SERVICES PLLC, and VAIA DELIDIMITROPULU, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03647 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to recover from Defendants (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid wages, due to time shaving, (3) damages for late payments of wages, (4) liquidated damages, (5) statutory penalties, and (6) attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The suit arises from the Defendants': (1) failure to pay minimum wage, (2) failure to pay all wages, due to time shaving, (3) failure to provide proper wage and hour notices, at dates of hiring and annually thereafter, per requirements of the NYLL, (4) failure to provide proper wage and hour statements, per requirements of the NYLL, and (5) failure to pay employees on a weekly basis in accordance with NYLL. The Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against him, shortly after Plaintiff made a lawful complaint concerning his wages and seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) economic damages, (2) punitive damages, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a front desk receptionist for Aristotle's Psychological & Biofeedback Services in Astoria, New York from October 10, 2024 until his termination on December 9, 2025. Aristotle Psychological and Biofeedback Services PLLC provides psychological products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ARROW INTERNATIONAL: James Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Howard James, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Ohio corporation; BINGO KING CO., an unknown business entity; TPI, an unknown business entity; TRADE PRODUCTS, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 26-00002-04779-31 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Snohomish, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02136. The Complaint sets forth ten causes of action against Arrow International, Inc., Bingo King Co., TPI and Trade Products alleging: Minimum Wage Violations in Violation of Minimum Wage Act; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Compensate for Legally Rest Periods; Failure to Compensate for Legally Noncompliant Meal Periods; Willful Withholding of Wages; Failure to Properly Compensate for Sick Leave; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination; Failure to Furnish Itemized Wage Statements; and Failure to Maintain Adequate Records. The Complaint seeks among other damages unpaid regular wages, overtime wages, exemplary damages in amounts equal to double damages and treble damages, penalties, and pre- and post-judgment interest, due to Plaintiff and Members of the putative Class, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason Harrington, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: jharrington@littler.com ASSETMARK INC: Warburton Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Warburton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ASSETMARK, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-06154 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident Defendant became aware of on May 15, 2026 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") about its customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in the Data Breach. On May 15, 2026, Defendant became aware that an unauthorized user obtained access to and downloaded files containing customer information. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On June 11, 2026, Defendant began sending victims of the Data Breach Notice of Data Breach letters informing them that their PII was accessed and exfiltrated in the Data Breach ("Notice"). The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential PII--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was used, stored, and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee and customer of Defendant, and a victim of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a leading wealth management platform that serves over 10,000 financial advisors and over 300,000 investor households nationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com ATLANTIC CASUALTY: Clean Ice Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Clean Ice, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company d/b/a Cleveland's Old Fashioned Ice Cream, on behalf of Itself and all similarly situated individuals and Business entities v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a North Carolina Corporation, Case No. CACE-26-007912 was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on June 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61728-MD. The Plaintiff alleges ACIC issued Plaintiff a Commercial Lines Policy and charged it a total premium of $2,660.71. Plaintiff further alleges that ACIC audited the premium and, as a result, demanded additional premium exceeding four times the amount listed on the Policy's Declarations page. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks: a declaration that the premium audit provision of the Commercial Lines insurance policy is unenforceable; and costs and attorney's fees; a declaration pursuant to Section 86.061, Florida Statutes, determining further relief in the form of judgment and/or injunctive relief directing ACIC to refund all audited or earned premiums collected from previous insureds.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gary Khutorsky, Esq. Stephanie S. Carlton, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 201 East Las Olas Blvd, Suite 1450 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-467-7900 Fax: 954-467-1024 Email: gkhutorsky@hinshawlaw.com scarlton@hinshawlaw.com AXION DATA SERVICES: Moore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- LaShea Moore and Courtney Rankin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AXION DATA SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01713-JPW (M.D. Pa., June 22, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") seeking payment of unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knowingly and improperly failed to pay them and other similarly situated workers overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. Although Plaintiffs and Collective Action Members were routinely required by Axion to work more than 40 hours per week, they received only a straight hourly rate, and were not paid for hours worked beyond 40 a week. Accordingly, they did not receive one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Axion. Axion provides telephonic customer support services to various companies in the healthcare industry, including UnitedHealth, Medicaid, Cigna, and UCare, throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: ssb@llrlaw.com - and - Olena Savytska, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: osavytska@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com BALLY'S INTERACTIVE: 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 Bally's Interactive 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 Bally's Interactive data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Bally's Interactive Security Incident: What Happened? Bally's Interactive, a Bally's subsidiary operating a host of digital gaming, betting, and gambling platforms, has reported a data breach that may put sensitive information at risk. A June 15, 2026 report made to the Vermont Attorney General's Office indicates that Social Security numbers may have been compromised in the Bally's Interactive data breach. No additional information about the nature or scope of the Bally's data breach was available at the time this post was made. Bally's Interactive's portfolio includes Bally Bet Casino, Bally Bet Sportsbook, Monopoly Casino, Bally Play, and more. What You Can Do After the Bally's Interactive Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Bally's Interactive 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 Bally's Interactive 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] BAYAMON MEDICAL: Court Affirms Dismissal of Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that the First Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a putative data breach class action against Bayamon Medical Center (BMC), holding that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that her injuries were traceable to the healthcare provider's 2019 ransomware attack. In Santos-Pagan v. Bayamon Medical Center, the court concluded that allegations of identity-related harm occurring after a data breach do not alone establish Article III standing where the complaint does not plausibly connect those injuries to the breach itself. The decision provides another significant defense victory in data breach class action litigation and underscores the continuing importance of causation and traceability in establishing Article III standing at the pleading stage. Background BMC experienced a ransomware attack in May 2019 that exposed the personally identifiable information and protected health information of more than 500,000 patients. Following an investigation, the hospital notified patients that unauthorized actors had accessed and encrypted information, but the investigation found no indication that the information had been used by unauthorized persons. The plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the hospital failed to adequately safeguard patient information. The complaint asserted that the breach exposed patients to an increased risk of identity theft, required mitigation efforts, caused out-of-pocket expenses, and diminished the value of their information. After multiple rounds of pleading, the plaintiff added allegations that an unknown cellular account had been opened in her name following receipt of the breach notification and that she spent approximately $800 addressing the issue. The district court dismissed the action for lack of standing, and the plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit Held That the Plaintiff Failed to Establish Traceability The First Circuit affirmed. Although the court concluded that the plaintiff had alleged a concrete injury in fact based on actual misuse of her information, it held that she failed to plausibly allege that the injury was fairly traceable to the BMC breach. The court emphasized that Article III standing requires more than allegations that a plaintiff experienced identity-related problems sometime after a data breach. Instead, a plaintiff must plead facts supporting a plausible connection between the challenged breach and the alleged misuse of information. In short, "the plaintiff's injury [must] be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct" based on the allegations in the complaint. The complaint contained no factual allegations showing that the information used to open the cellular account originated from the hospital breach. Nor did it allege facts suggesting that the hackers actually acquired, exfiltrated, sold, or misused patient information. To the contrary, the breach notification indicated that investigators found no evidence that the information had been used by unauthorized persons. The court concluded that the complaint relied on speculation rather than facts plausibly connecting the alleged fraud to the breach. The First Circuit also rejected the argument that temporal proximity alone established causation. Although temporal proximity was one factor supporting traceability in the First Circuit's prior decision in Webb v. Injured Workers Pharmacy, LLC, the court emphasized that Webb involved additional factual allegations linking the alleged misuse to the breach. The fact that a fraudulent cellular account was opened after breach notification did not plausibly demonstrate that the account resulted from the ransomware incident. Indeed, the plaintiff did not even allege that the same kind of information exposed in the incident was required to open the fraudulent account. Without factual allegations linking the alleged misuse to the compromised data, the complaint failed to satisfy Article III's traceability requirement. For our prior discussion of the First Circuit's analysis in Webb, see our prior post. Finally, because the plaintiff did not raise on appeal the issues of whether the diminution of value of her information, efforts to mitigate future harm, and loss of the benefit of her bargain with BMC constituted injury in fact, the court did not reach those questions. The court did note that, because the complaint failed to allege traceability, even if those standing arguments had been raised on appeal, they would not have altered the outcome. First Circuit Continues to Refine Data Breach Standing Requirements The decision is notable because many data breach class action cases focus primarily on whether plaintiffs have alleged a sufficiently concrete injury. In Santos-Pagan, the First Circuit instead centered its analysis on causation. The court recognized that even where a plaintiff alleges actual misuse or identity-related harm, standing may still fail if the complaint does not plausibly connect that harm to the defendant's data breach. The ruling also reflects growing judicial scrutiny of complaints that rely on generalized assumptions about cybercriminal conduct. Courts increasingly require plaintiffs to plead facts showing not only that a breach occurred, but that the specific information compromised in the breach was likely used in the manner alleged. Here, the First Circuit made clear that temporal proximity alone will not plausibly establish traceability absent additional factual allegations linking the alleged misuse to the breach. Key Takeaways for Defendants Santos-Pagan provides several useful lessons for defendants facing privacy and data breach class actions. First, standing challenges remain a powerful early defense even where plaintiffs allege actual identity-related harm. As observed in a prior post, standing-based motions to dismiss continue to succeed with some frequency in the First Circuit. Second, defendants should carefully scrutinize whether the complaint plausibly links any alleged misuse of information to the specific breach at issue rather than relying on vague temporal proximity or generalized allegations of increased risk. Third, the decision underscores that traceability remains an independent constitutional requirement that plaintiffs must satisfy even when they plausibly allege a concrete injury. For businesses defending against data breach class action claims, the First Circuit's decision offers a powerful reminder that allegations of downstream fraud do not automatically establish standing. Plaintiffs must still plausibly connect the alleged harm to the defendant's breach, and where that connection is missing, dismissal remains appropriate at the pleading stage. [GN] BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Gardella Sues Over Breach of Implied Warranty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Gardella and Aaran Renwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT AND BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-05349 (D.N.J., May 12, 2026), is brought against the Defendants to request injunctive relief, monetary damages, including multiple damages where applicable, court costs and attorney fees against each of the respective BMW entities based upon their breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of consumer protection laws of New Jersey and Florida (jointly referred to as "state consumer protection laws"). The Defendants in this action designed, manufactured and/or sold certain 2019 through and including 2021 model year BMW passenger motor vehicles including 2 Series, 3 Series, 4 Series, 5 Series, 7 Series, X3, X4, X5, X6, and X7 vehicles (collectively "class vehicles" or "class vehicle") equipped with the B58 Gen 2 (TU1) engine (collectively "class engine" or "class engines") The class engine oil pump is reasonably expected by Defendants, proposed class representatives and proposed class members to last the serviceable life of the vehicle that is in excess of 150,000 miles. The class engine oil pump often fails at less than 50% of their reasonably expected useful life. Proposed class representatives' class vehicles experienced premature engine oil pump failure or received notice of impending pump failure. Replacement of a class engine oil pump costs vehicle owners upwards of $3,000.00 to and including over $7,000.00 depending on the class vehicle. Low or no oil pressure caused by a failing or failed oil pump results in catastrophic engine failure. Class vehicle engine replacement costs upwards of $20,000.00. Individuals who own or have owned class vehicles also sustained diminution of the resale value of their class vehicles since knowledge of problems with class engines became public information, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased a new 2021 BMW X5 from Princeton BMW of Hamilton, New Jersey, an authorized BMW dealer. BMW AG designed, manufactured and tested class engines, including but not limited to the oil pump incorporated in class engines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Daniel C. Edelman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: (201) 391-7000 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com dedelman@kgglaw.com - and - Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C. 7 Evergreen Lane Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (781) 741-6075 BAYOU TITLE INC: Luckett Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leskisher Luckett, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BAYOU TITLE, INC., Case No. 875-428 was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana on June 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01296-NJB-DPC. In the Petition, Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 29, 2026, Defendant experienced a Data Breach in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and extracted files containing sensitive Private Information. The Plaintiff further alleges the notorious ransomware group "Aurora" has claimed responsibility for the attack, and the following types of Private Information were compromised: name, Social Security number, address, contact information, and financial information ("Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to provide timely notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative nationwide class = consisting of "all persons whose Private Information was actually or potentially accessed or acquired during the Data Breach." The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: negligence, negligence per se, violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, violations of La. Rev. Stat. Section 51:3074, and breach of implied contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq. Taylor P. Smith, Esq. ADAMS &REESE, LLP 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 Phone: (504) 581-3234 Facsimile: (504) 566-0210 Email: gerard.gaudet@arlaw.com taylor.smith@arlaw.com BEACH 2 OCEAN CORP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEACH 2 OCEAN CORP., Case No. 0:26-cv-03044-LMP-DLM (D. Minn., June 22, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.beach2ocean.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers women's swimwear for sale including, but not limited to, swim tops, swim bottoms, one-piece swimsuits, cover ups and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MURPHY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SHANNON ALLEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00135-MAC (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting requests to certify the proposed class, appoint Murphy as class representative and undersigned counsel as class counsel, and grant such other and further relief to which he is justly entitled. In the alternative, Murphy requests that the Court authorize limited pre-certification class discovery into BISD's premium-pay and release records, defer the numerosity determination until that discovery is complete, and set a schedule for renewed briefing on certification. Greg Murphy renews his motion to certify a class of nonexempt Beaumont Independent School District ("BISD") employees who were required to work during the COVID-19 emergency closure and were denied the premium pay BISD's own policy required. This is not a re-run of the motion the Court denied in 2024. The Court denied certification on two grounds, and the Fifth Circuit's intervening opinion has removed one of them entirely and reframed the other Murphy proposes the following class: "All nonexempt BISD employees who were required to report to work during the COVID19 emergency closure of approximately March 23, 2020 through May 28, 2020, who were denied premium pay under BISD Board Policy DEA (LOCAL), and who did not sign a release of their premium-pay claim." Beaumont Independent is a U.S. public school district serving Beaumont in Southeast Texas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BXsfaF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon P. Monk, Esq. THE MONK LAW FIRM 4875 Parker Drive Beaumont, TX 77705 Telephone: (409) 724-6665 Facsimile: (409) 729-6665 E-mail: brandon@themonklawfirm.com BETTER U INC: Reed Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better U, Inc. The case is styled as Meagan Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Better U, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-06606 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Better U -- https://www.betterucare.com/ -- is an alternative mental health organization that offers psychedelic therapy, ketamine treatments, and integration coaching.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com BHC SIERRA VISTA: Salgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. The case is styled as Theresa Salgado, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Sierra Vista Hospital, Case No. 26CV014745 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death." BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. doing business as Sierra Vista Hospital -- https://sierravistahospital.com/ -- is a Medicare-certified skilled nursing and behavioral health facility located in Highland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com BILL GILBERT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 15 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE VON BREEDEN, V. BILL GILBERT ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 9:26-cv-80375-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Middlebrooks entered an order granting extension of time as follows: 1) The Plaintiffs unopposed motion for enlargement of time is granted. 2) The June 15, 2026 deadline to join additional parties, amend pleadings and to move for class certification is extended until July 15, 2026. In this motion, the Plaintiff states that her pay records were just received on June 12, 2026, despite the Parties' diligence. She note that the motion is conclusory in that it does not include facts to support the assertion that the Parties have been diligent. Nevertheless, she find the good cause standard to be sufficiently met, and therefore the above referenced deadlines are extended to July 15, 2026. No other deadlines in the PSO are modified or extended as a result of this Order. Additionally, I wish to address the statement in the motion which indicates that the Parties have not yet taken depositions because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss remains pending. (DE 32 at 2). The Parties are advised that a pending motion to dismiss, even a potentially dispositive one, does not stay ongoing litigation. The Parties are expected to move the case forward with respect to discovery pending the court's ruling Bill is a fully licensed and insured electrical contractor. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NtIsjj at no extra charge.[CC] BLOCK INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORINNE GONSALVES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BLOCK, INC., JACK DORSEY, and AMRITA AHUJA, Case No. 5:25-cv-00642-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Plaintiff's reply memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The Defendants should be permitted to file a sur-reply because the Plaintiff introduces new evidence and arguments in its Reply, including a 67-page expert report from Dr. Steven Feinstein that opines on price impact for the first time. The Plaintiff also offered an entirely new definition of the "Alleged Truth," focused on the purported "intentional weakening of compliance controls," which the Plaintiff claims rendered Cash App's metrics "unreliable proxies" for legitimate growth. Block is a financial technology company co-founded in 2009 by the Jack Dorsey. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fyjQfQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Lutz, Esq. Jessica Valenzuela, Esq. Jeffrey D. Lombard, Esq. Sofia Ritala, Esq. Colin B. Davis, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 E-mail: blutz@gibsondunn.com jvalenzuela@gibsondunn.com jlombard@gibsondunn.com sritala@gibsondunn.com cdavis@gibsondunn.com - and - Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 426-7300 E-mail: jyoungwood@stblaw.com BOBO'S FORDHAM BRONX: Gramajos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Gramajos, on behalf of herself and others similarly Situated v. BOBO'S FORDHAM BRONX INC., BOBO'S COOP CITY INC., BOBO'S DYCKMAN SHERMAN INC., BOBO'S SOUNDVIEW BRONX INC., OCEANIC DELIGHTS GROUP INC., and ZU HUA WANG a/k/a BO WANG, Case No. 7:26-cv-05216 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that she and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid wages, due to the issuance of unsigned and/or dishonored checks; damages for late payment of wages; unpaid spread of hours premiums; liquidated damages; statutory penalties; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was scheduled by Defendants to work 4 days a week for a total of 42 hours in a work week. However, Plaintiff's schedule varied often depending on Defendants' operational needs. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members for all hours worked, due to time shaving. Defendants required Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members to work approximately 15 to 30 minutes after they clocked out at the end of their scheduled shifts, performing duties including but not limited to setting up workstations and cleaning. However, Defendants never compensated them for said work and required Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members to clock out at their scheduled end times despite their work not being finished. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to pay wages to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members for all hours they worked, due to Defendants' policy of time shaving, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a server and cashier for Defendants' Bobo's Crab Shack Restaurant in October 2023. The Defendants own and operate Bobo's Crab Shack, a chain of seafood restaurants in the Bronx and Manhattan specializing in Louisiana-style seafood boils.[BN] 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 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Filing for Renewed Class Cert. Bid Due July 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kolnsberg, et al., v. Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01515 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall entered an order setting the following schedule: Defendants' deadline to file a Motion to Dismiss: July 2, 2026 Defendants' deposition of named plaintiffs: July 9, 2026 Plaintiffs' deadline to Oppose Defendants Motion to Dismiss: July 31, 2026 Defendants' deadline to file a Reply in Support of Dismissal: Aug. 21, 2026 Plaintiffs' deadline to file a renewed Motion for Class Certification (if they choose to do so): July 2, 2026 Defendants' deadline to Oppose Class Certification: Aug. 14, 2026 Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply in Support of Class Certification: Sept. 4, 2026 Damage Analysis for claims or counterclaims for damages: Oct. 31, 2026 Fact discovery to be completed: Dec. 15, 2026 Plaintiffs' deadline to disclose experts: Jan. 15, 2027 Defendants' deadline to disclose experts: Feb. 15, 2027 All discovery to be completed, including all expert depositions: March 31, 2027 Deadline to file Motions to Exclude Experts: April 30, 2027 Deadline to file Dispositive Motions: April 30, 2027 Deadline to file Joint Trial Memorandum (or 30 days after a ruling on summary judgment, whichever is later): April 30, 2027 Boehringer manufactures pharmaceutical products.[CC] BOYD BROS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Boyd Bros. and WTI 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 Boyd Bros. and WTI data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Boyd Bros. and WTI Security Incident: What Happened? TFI International subsidiaries Boyd Bros. Transportation and WTI Transport have reported a data breach involving unauthorized access to their systems. According to a sample notification letter, Boyd Bros. and WTI first became aware of a potential breach on or about May 12, 2026, and an ongoing investigation confirmed on or about May 22 that personal information may have been exposed in the Boyd Bros. Transportation and WTI Transport data breach. The information that may have been compromised in the Boyd Bros. and WTI data breach includes names, Social Security numbers, personal addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, contact information, and driver's license information. Boyd Bros. Transportation and WTI Transport, both based in Alabama, began notifying potentially affected individuals on June 22, 2026. What You Can Do After the Boyd Bros. and WTI Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Boyd Bros. and WTI 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 Boyd Bros. and WTI 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] BRAND EVANGELISTS: Selby Sues Over False and Misleading Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Selby and Christy Clifft, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRAND EVANGELISTS FOR BEAUTY INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-05924 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2026), is brought for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; California's Unfair Competition Law; California's False Advertising Law; Breach of Express Warranty; and Unjust Enrichment as a result of the Defendant's false and misleading claims regarding the Defendant's The INKEY List Exosome Hydro-Glow Complex (the "Product"). The Defendant prominently represents that the Product delivers quantifiable, dramatic results on Amazon.com and Defendant's The INKEY List website at theinkeylist.com ("Inkey Website" and together with Amazon the "Websites"), including but not limited to the following ("Advertised Claims"): "Plant-derived Exosomes help boost collagen production by 300%"; "helps reduce inflammation by 55%"; "improves skin repair by 63% in eight hours"; "up to 12 hours of hydration"; and "Skin rejuvenation in 14 days, clinically proven." But these claims, and others made by Defendant regarding the Product, are false and misleading. Scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that the Advertised Claims about the Product's performance cannot be achieved by cosmetic ingredients at the concentrations used in over-the-counter formulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Product. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells its Product throughout California and the United States, including through Amazon and the Inkey Website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (818) 370-3912 Email: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com BRIAN KEMP: Gordon Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert A. Gordon, Resident of the District of Columbia; Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Governor of Georgia, Attorney General of Georgia, Case No. 1:26-cv-00918 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03326-JPB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Voting Civil Rights. Brian Porter Kemp is an American politician serving as the 83rd governor of Georgia since 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BRYAN BEDFORD: Lasky Suit Transferred to D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Lasky, Joseph Puglia, Jonathan Matlach, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Bryan Bedford, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in his official capacity; Federal Aviation Authority, Case No. 3:26-cv-00580 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02187-SLS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. Bryan Bedford is the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), leading the agency's mission to ensure the safety, security, and efficiency of the U.S. aerospace system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Webb, Esq. JOHN D. WEBB, P.A. 1662 Stockton Street, Suite 201 Jacksonville, FL 32204 Phone: (904) 803-4686 Email: jwebb@jackwebblaw.com CANPOTEX LIMITED: Jason Buckman Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jason Buckman Farms, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Canpotex Limited, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., Koch Agronomic Services, LLC, Nutrien AG Solutions, The Mosaic Company, Yara International ASA, Case No. 2:26-cv-04063 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01178-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Canpotex Limited -- https://www.canpotex.com/ -- provides agricultural products. The Company markets and delivers potash products. Canpotex serves customers globally.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. PAUL LLP 600 Broadway Blvd., Ste 600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 984-8100 Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com CANPOTEX LTD: Vohs Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Steven Vohs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; and YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA, Case No. 5:26-cv-04040 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01175 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Canpotex Limited -- https://www.canpotex.com/ -- provides agricultural products. The Company markets and delivers potash products. Canpotex serves customers globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. Justyn J. Millamena, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 570 Lexington Ave., 19th Floor New York, NY 10023 Phone: (212) 759-4600 Email: ASavett@wolfpopper.com MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com JMillamena@wolfpopper.com CAPITAL CITY: Petty Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Petty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital City Utilities, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-00756-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 23, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMWFSA"), Ohio Prompt Pay Act for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned overtime wages. Under the FLSA and OMWFSA, employers must pay all non-exempt employees an overtime wage premium of pay one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time they spend working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Defendant violated the FLSA and OMWFSA by automatically deducting a thirty-minute meal break from each and every shift Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members worked regardless of whether Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members were able to take a meal break, regardless of whether they were permitted to take a full thirty-minute meal break, and regardless of whether they were completely relieved from duty for thirty-minutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Capital City as a non-exempt hourly employee from February 9, 2025 through January 24, 2026. Capital City was licensed to transact business in the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com CAPITAL ONE: Tracking Technology Suit Fails to Secure Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alina Gonzalez, writing for TCPA World, reports that another website-tracking class action has hit a familiar roadblock: class certification. In Ingraham v. Capital One Financial Corp., No. 24-cv-05985-TLT (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2026), the Northern District of California denied certification of both nationwide and California classes arising out of allegations that Capital One improperly disclosed consumers' information through website tracking technologies, including Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, Adobe Analytics, and other tools embedded on Capital One's credit card application webpages. The plaintiffs alleged that when consumers applied for credit cards through Capital One's website, various tracking technologies transmitted personal and financial information to third parties without consent. According to plaintiffs, the information allegedly included data concerning credit card applications, browsing activity, employment information, bank account information, and other consumer data. But despite allegations of a uniform tracking ecosystem deployed across Capital One's website, the court concluded that the case could not proceed on a classwide basis. And the reasons why should sound familiar to anyone defending website-tracking litigation. The court's first concern was a recurring issue in pixel and wiretapping cases: what information was actually transmitted? Plaintiffs identified numerous categories of allegedly protected information that they contended were shared with third parties. The problem was that the record demonstrated that different users may have transmitted different information depending on their browser settings, browsing behavior, interactions with the website, and the particular tracking technology involved. In other words, simply proving that a tracking technology existed on the website did not answer the question of what information was actually transmitted for any particular user. The court found that determining whether information was transmitted, and if so, precisely what information was transmitted, would require individualized inquiries for each putative class member. Because plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the same categories of information were uniformly transmitted for all users, individualized issues predominated. But the opinion gets even more interesting when it turns to consent. The plaintiffs argued that consent could be resolved through common proof because Capital One utilized common disclosures and privacy policies. The court disagreed. Relying on prior website-tracking decisions, the court emphasized that consent often depends on what disclosures a particular user encountered and what understanding that user developed from those disclosures. Some users may have seen different disclosures, some may have reviewed privacy policies differently, and California residents may have received additional notices not provided to others. As a result, determining whether any individual user expressly or impliedly consented would require a user-by-user analysis. This issue continues to create significant challenges for plaintiffs in website-tracking litigation. Courts evaluating claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and similar privacy statutes have increasingly focused on consent as an individualized factual issue. Where consent depends on the disclosures a user encountered and the user's understanding of those disclosures, predominance becomes difficult to establish. The court then addressed another issue that has become increasingly important in privacy class actions: standing. The court noted that it had previously reached different standing conclusions regarding the named plaintiffs themselves. One plaintiff was able to demonstrate a privacy interest sufficient to establish standing, while another was not. That distinction proved significant. According to the court, determining whether a particular class member suffered a concrete injury would require examining what information was transmitted, how it was transmitted, the nature of the information involved, and whether that individual had a privacy interest in the information at issue. Those questions could not be answered through common proof. Instead, they would require the same fact-intensive analysis for potentially thousands or even millions of class members. Read together with other recent website-tracking decisions, Ingraham reflects a growing trend. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing whether plaintiffs can establish common proof regarding three critical issues: 1. What information was actually collected or transmitted; 2. Whether users consented to the alleged disclosures; and 3. Whether users suffered a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing. The mere presence of a tracking technology on a website is often not enough. For businesses defending website-tracking litigation, the decision provides another roadmap for opposing class certification. Variations in user behavior, browser settings, disclosures, consent, and the information actually transmitted may create individualized issues that overwhelm common questions. The lessons here: -- The existence of website tracking technology alone may not support class certification. -- Plaintiffs increasingly must demonstrate a common method of proving what information was actually transmitted for every class member. -- Consent remains a powerful certification defense where users encounter different disclosures or privacy notices. -- Standing continues to present a significant obstacle in privacy class actions, particularly where individualized inquiries are required to determine whether any particular user suffered a concrete injury. -- Companies defending CIPA and website-tracking cases should focus early discovery efforts on differences in user experiences, disclosures, browser settings, and the specific information allegedly transmitted. So here's another reminder that the presence of a tracking technology may be enough to file a lawsuit, but it is not necessarily enough to certify a class. [GN] CARDINAL HEALTH: Advantage Medical Sues Over Facsimile Transmission ------------------------------------------------------------------- Advantage Medical Associates, P.A., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and entities v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-07114-GC-RLS (D.N.J., June 15, 2026), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from facsimile transmissions sent by or on behalf of the Defendant that promoted the commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or services. The TCPA prohibits using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine. Plaintiff did not provide prior express invitation or permission to receive facsimile transmission. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated persons and entities seeking statutory damages and other relief for violations of the TCPA, says the complaint. The Advantage Medical Associates, P.A., is a New Jersey professional association operating the medical practice of Dr. Misha Basalaev, M.D, located in East Brunswick, New Jersey. Cardinal Health is a for-profit healthcare services company that provides healthcare products and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Canning, Esq. Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq. Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701-6777 Phone: 732-741-3900 Email: MCanning@ghclaw.com MFiorovanti@ghclaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. CLASS LAWYERS, LLC DBA BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 203 N. La Salle St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-658-5501 Email: service@classlawyers.com CARGURUS INC: Vincent Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gilda Vincent, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CARGURUS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV493124 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-05774. The Complaint asserts the following claims on behalf of Plaintiff and putative classes of United States and California residents arising from CarGurus' alleged use of trackers and cookies to collect identifying information of visitors to CarGurus' website at www.cargurus.com and to intercept information about the interactions of website visitors with the website: violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code Section 630 ("CIPA"); violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the "Wiretap Act"); violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code Section 502; invasion of privacy, California Constitution; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Rana Salem, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Phone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 Email: ccardon@sheppard.com rsalem@sheppard.com CATALYST BRANDS: Hudson Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Beverly Hudson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC and PENNEY OPCO LLC d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00655 (E.D. Tex., June 15, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII" or the "Private Information") of their current and former employees, which was entrusted to Defendants as a condition of employment. On June 12, 2026, the cybercriminal and data-extortion group known as "ShinyHunters" posted on its dark-web leak site that it had breached JCPenney "along with several other retail brands operating under Catalyst Brands and Authentic Brands Group," and had exfiltrated hundreds of thousands of records containing the highly sensitive personal and employment-related information of Defendants' current and former employees (the "Data Breach"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes, but is not necessarily limited to, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, W-2 tax records, payroll information, physical scans of government-issued identity documents, and driver's license numbers. The actions of Defendants related to this Data Breach are unconscionable. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by their negligent (if not reckless) information-technology practices. Compounding matters, and upon information and belief, to date Defendants have not issued any public statement, regulatory notification, or individual notice to affected individuals acknowledging or explaining the Data Breach. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of JCPenney / Catalyst Brands. Catalyst is a retail holding company formed in 2025 through the merger of Sparc Group and JCPenney, operating JCPenney and a portfolio of other retail apparel brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Stewart, Esq. K STEWART LAW, P.C. 4597 Belfort Avenue Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: (972) 308-6166 Email: kelly@kstewartlaw.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (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 Phone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Central Valley Meat Company has agreed to a settlement to conclude a class action lawsuit that alleged the meat wholesaler failed to protect current and former employees' private information from a May 2024 data breach. The Central Valley Meat Co. class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 24, 2026. The deal covers all United States citizens who received a data breach notice letter from Central Valley on or around December 30, 2024. Court documents state that approximately 18,821 current and former employees were affected by the breach. The court-approved website for the Central Valley Meat Co. class action settlement can be found at CentralValleyDataSettlement.com. Central Valley settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for extraordinary out-of-pocket losses incurred between May 23, 2024 and September 28, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses resulting from fraud or identity theft and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, postage and more. As part of this benefit, class members can claim up to two hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach at a rate of $25 per hour, subject to the $5,000 payout cap. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive an extraordinary-loss payment. In addition, class members who were California residents at the time of the breach can file a claim to receive a $75 cash payment due to state-specific statutory requirements. To submit a Central Valley Meat Co. settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Central Valley claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 28, 2026. Finally, all class members will automatically receive an enrollment code on their copy of the postcard notice for two years of CyEx Identity Defense Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, dark web scanning, and public records monitoring. The court will determine whether to grant the Central Valley settlement final approval following a hearing on August 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Central Valley Meat Co. class action lawsuit alleged that the California-based cattle processor and meat wholesaler failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the private information of current and former employees and others from a May 2024 data breach. Per court filings, private information that may have been compromised in the breach includes names and Social Security numbers. [GN] CENTURY LINEN & UNIFORM: Howard Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Linen & Uniform, LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Howard, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. JEWISH HOME OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC., Case No. EF2026-283329 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Rensselaer Cty., June 19, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Labor Law - Class Action). Century Linen & Uniform, Inc. -- https://centurylinen.com/ -- is a leading provider of linen management and uniform rental services that offers cleaning, folding, and replacement solutions as well as other facility services to the healthcare, hospitality, and industrial industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Stephan Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 CF INDUSTRIES: Gilman Feed Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gilman Feed Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH, INC., KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; CANPOTEX LTD.; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05099 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01181-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.cfindustries.com/ -- is an American manufacturer and distributor of agricultural fertilizers, including ammonia, urea, and ammonium nitrate products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Austin Blair Cohen, Esq. Keith J. Verrier, Esq. Nicholas John Elia, Esq. LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: acohen@lfsblaw.com kverrier@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. Alyssa C. Kalisky, Esq. Christa Cynthia Cottrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS-CHICAGO 333 W. Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Email: daniel.laytin@kirkland.com alyssa.kalisky@kirkland.com CHEROKEE NATION: Rodriguez-Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jose Rodriguez-Guzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHEROKEE NATION MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING, L.L.C., a Cherokee Nation limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-03640-BJC-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 19, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, equitable tolling where appropriate, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees all compensation required by the FLSA, including by failing to pay for all compensable work time; failing to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty in a workweek; issuing "time credits," "comp time," paid-time off credits, or similar leave credits in lieu of cash overtime compensation; requiring or permitting off-the clock work before clocking in, during unpaid or automatically deducted meal periods, and after clocking out; and failing to maintain accurate records of all hours worked and all time-credit accruals, use, expiration, forfeiture, and cash-out, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Warehouse Specialist in San Diego County, California from March 22, 2016 to June 20, 2024. Cherokee Nation Management & Consulting, L.L.C. is, on information and belief, a Cherokee Nation limited liability company that conducts business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Lauren M. Lendzion, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com lauren.lendzion@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com CIGNA GROUP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Snyder Due Oct. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Snyder, et al., v. Cigna Group, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01451 (D. Conn., Filed Nov. 2, 2023), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time: Fact discovery must be complete on or before September 30, 2026. Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be due on or before October 14, 2026. Any response thereto will be due on or before December 21, 2026. Any reply brief will be due on or before February 19, 2027. All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by the parties without court approval. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Cigna is an American multinational for-profit managed healthcare and insurance company.[CC] CITIZENS TELECOM: Stuart Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Stuart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES COMPANY LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV13440 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06584. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action on behalf of himself and a putative class: Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records; Failure to Pay Final Wages; Willful Misclassification; and Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Zadravecz, Esq. Lauren E. Dutkiewicz, Esq. Paige M. Christie, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612.4408 Phone: +1.949.851.3939 Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539 Email: szadravecz@jonesday.com ldutkiewicz@jonesday.com pchristie@jonesday.com CLAYTON & CRUME: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CLAYTON & CRUME, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05212 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, www.claytonandcrume.com, and therefore its denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff attempted to browse the Website to learn about product details, evaluate leather goods, and complete purchases for herself and others. However, unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers, Plaintiff will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on Defendant's Website. Defendant's denial of equal access to its Website constitutes unlawful discrimination under the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its Website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Such relief is necessary to guarantee equal participation in the digital marketplace and to prevent Defendant from continuing to exclude individuals with disabilities from its online retail services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is permanently disabled due to legal blindness. The Defendant is a Louisville, Kentucky-based manufacturer and retailer of premium handcrafted leather goods and accessories, proudly produced in Kentucky and marketed nationwide through its public-facing website, www.claytonandcrume.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CLUTTER INC: Davis Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dominic Davis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLUTTER INC., a Delaware corporation; IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV14873 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06635. The Complaint asserts twelve causes of action for Violations Of Fair Credit Reporting Act; Violations of California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act; Failure To Pay For All Hours Worked; Failure To Provide Paid Rest Breaks And Pay Missed Break Premiums; Failure To Provide Meal Periods And Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums; Failure To Pay All Wages Owed In A Timely Manner; Failure To Provide Complete Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure To Pay All Overtime Wages Owed; Failure To Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition In Violation Of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: bpelliconi@seyfarth.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Barnett Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Marion Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, TriZetto Provider Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-03525 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00991-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Delvalle Files Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adrian Delvalle, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Columbia Sportswear Company, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-24246-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Columbia Sportswear Company -- https://www.columbia.com/ -- is an American company that manufactures and distributes outerwear, sportswear, and footwear, as well as headgear, camping equipment, ski apparel, and outerwear accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Charles Luzadder, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 W Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 857-7070 Fax: (312) 857-7095 Email: mluzadder@kelleydrye.com CONSOLVA FUNDING: Wise Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolva Funding LLC. The case is styled as Ginger Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consolva Funding LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Consolva Funding LLC -- https://consolvafunding.com/ -- operates as an online provider of personal loans and financing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com COVE SMART LLC: Mays Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cove Smart, LLC. The case is styled as Stephanie Mays, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cove Smart, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00292 (E.D. Tenn., June 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cove Smart LLC -- https://www.covesmart.com/ -- is a home security company based in Orem, Utah, specializing in providing innovative security solutions for residential properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (917) 628-5842 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com COYOACAN TAQUERIA: Walker Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- AALIYAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. COYOACAN TAQUERIA & BREW, LLC and REYNALDO "REY" GALINDO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01353 (N.D. Ohio, June 12, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio Constitution. According to the complaint, through a knowing and company-wide scheme, the Defendants systematically failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the legally required minimum wages for all hours worked. The Defendants improperly utilized a tip credit while engaging in widespread time-shaving practices and paying an incorrect sub-minimum wage rate, says the suit. Additionally, the Defendants terminated Plaintiff Walker because she made protected wage complaints, in direct violation of state law. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful retaliation, the Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost wages, and is entitled to equitable relief, back pay, front pay, appropriate statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Walker was employed by Defendants as a server/bartender. Coyoacan Taqueria & Brew, LLC is a domestic limited liability company which operates the "Coyoacan Taqueria & Brew" and "Luchita's Mexican Restaurant" establishments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com CREDIT PROS: Pilavian Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Alec Pilavian, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80735-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2026), is brought on behalf of similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information ("PII") suffered by Defendant (the "Data Breach"). On June 16, 2026, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its computer network. The ransom group, "Icarus" claimed to have accessed Defendant's network and stolen sensitive PII. The files potentially compromised as a result of the Data Breach include: names, contact information, dates of birth, addresses, credit/debit card information, Social Security numbers and bank account information. The Defendant had a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members from involuntary disclosure to third parties and to audit, monitor, and verify the integrity of its third party applications and affiliates for their own cybersecurity. Defendant has a legal duty to keep individuals' PII safe and confidential. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to ensure the protection of that Private Information, and it knew or should have known that it was thus responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from disclosure. Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded; failing to take available steps to prevent an 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 As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief., says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their PII to Defendant. The Defendant is a financial technology company that provides customers with credit repair and monitoring services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Natalia Perez, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: natalianperez@yahoo.com CRIMSON WINE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $637,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Crimson Wine Group has agreed to a $637,500 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the vineyard management firm failed to protect sensitive information in its care from a June 2024 data breach. The $637,500 Crimson Wine Group settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 26, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose private information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized third party as a result of the data breach reported by Crimson Wine Group in June 2024. Court documents state that the class action settlement covers approximately 26,238 people. The court-approved website for the Crimson Wine Group (CWG) class action settlement can be found at CrimsonWineSettlement.com. Crimson Wine Group settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses related to identity theft or fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, bank fees, replacement IDs, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead file a claim form to receive an estimated $100 cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payment may be larger or smaller, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Additionally, all class members can submit a claim form to receive two years of credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, which includes dark web scanning, public records monitoring, and access to fraud resolution agents. To submit a Crimson Wine Group claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Crimson Wine Group settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 1, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Crimson Wine Group settlement final approval following a hearing on October 13, 2026. Monetary compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Crimson Wine Group class action lawsuit alleged that the boutique vineyard management firm, which operates vineyards and wineries across California, Oregon and Washington, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to safeguard sensitive information in its care, which allegedly led to a data breach in June 2024. According to court documents, private information that may have bee DELTA DENTAL: Henneberg Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey J. Henneberg, D.D.S., P.C., individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON, a Washington corporation, Case No. 26-2-17443-1 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 23, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02185. The Plaintiff Jeffrey J. Henneberg, D.D.S., P.C.--a dental service provider ("Provider")--falsely alleges that DDWA colluded with DDPA, DeltaUSA, and the other 38 DDMCs to suppress the reimbursements that Providers receive for treating Delta Dental insureds in violation of Washington antitrust law. Although Plaintiff claims that the challenged conduct applied uniformly throughout the United States, Plaintiff only named DDWA as a Defendant. The Plaintiff omitted DDPA and DeltaUSA from this lawsuit in a transparent attempt to escape from a federal court's rejection of identical arguments that DDWA and other members of the Delta Dental joint venture allegedly committed per se illegal antitrust violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. DLA PIPER 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 6900 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 839-4800 Anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com - and - Britt M. Miller, Esq. Daniel K. Storino, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8663 Fax: (312) 706-8763 Email: bmiller@mayerbrown.com dstorino@mayerbrown.com DIRECT DIGITAL: Sanchez Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alicia Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIRECT DIGITAL LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a ADAPTIVE HEALTH and PEPTIVAPROBIOTICS.COM, Case No. 26CV186845 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05969. The Plaintiff alleges that Direct Digital violated California law by allegedly sending unlawful email commercial advertisements and by tracking plaintiff's visit to a Direct Digital website.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ari N. Rothman, Esq. Allison C. Nelson, Esq. M. Scott Moulin, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 Email: anrothman@venable.com acnelson@venable.com msmoulin@venable.com DTLA HOTEL MANAGEMENT: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DTLA Hotel Management, LLC. The case is styled as Juana Valencia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DTLA Hotel Management, LLC, Parable Hospitality LLC, UKG Inc., Case No. 26STCV19928 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." DTLA Hotel Management, LLC operates a 62-room property located at 1123 West 7th Street in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com FEDCAP GROUP: 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 The Fedcap Group 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 The Fedcap Group data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. The Fedcap Group Security Incident: What Happened? The Fedcap Group, which operates a network of international nonprofit affiliates, has confirmed a data breach in a June 22, 2026 report submitted to the Vermont Attorney General's Office. The report revealed that Social Security numbers were among the information compromised in The Fedcap Group data breach. What You Can Do After the The Fedcap Group Data Breach If your information was exposed in the The Fedcap Group 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 The Fedcap Group to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] FERKO'S FINE JEWELRY: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. FERKO'S FINE JEWELRY LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05060 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.ferkosfinejewelry.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. FERKO'S FINE JEWELRY LLC, operates the Ferko's Fine Jewelry online retail store, as well as the Ferko's Fine Jewelry interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal FIRST RELIANCE: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Colony Bankshares ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 First Reliance Bancshares, Inc. (OTCQX: FSRL) related to its sale to Colony Bankshares, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Reliance shareholders will receive either (i) $19.75 in cash or 0.94 of a share of Colony's common stock in exchange for each share of First Reliance common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-reliance-bancshares-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] FORTESCUE METALS: Female Miners Launch Sexual Harassment Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Sofia Jayne, writing for The Saturday Paper, reports that female workers at Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest's Fortescue have brought the iron ore company before the courts, with claims of sexual assault and discrimination at its remote mining sites. What we know: -- The allegations involve rape, sexual assault, discrimination, promotions offered for sexual acts and women being warned not to use laundry services due to underwear theft. These accusations are part of a landmark case filed in the Federal Court in Melbourne (ABC). -- Special counsel Paris Hamrey of law firm JGA Saddler, which filed the case, said most women working on remote sites, if not all, had suffered from sexual harassment or discrimination. "The mining industry has a real problem with women," she said (The Guardian). -- The law firm has already filed class actions against mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP over similar allegations, which remain before the courts. "These companies actually need to stand up and address issues . . . strengthen their policies, actually enforce the policy, and provide a space where women feel safe to work," Hamrey said (The Guardian). -- A statement from JGA Saddler included testimonies from 45 women, with many saying they were demoted, silenced or blacklisted from the industry after trying to report incidents (Reuters). -- Fortescue CEO Dino Otranto said the company took the allegations seriously and revelations over recent years showed the industry needed to "lift its standards". Fortescue said it was investing $300m to improve safety through deadlocks, CCTV footage and improved lighting (ABC). [GN] FOXCONN/HON HAI: Romero Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mark A. Murillo Romero, Pavlo Krutyholova, and Aaron Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. FOXCONN/HON HAI LOGISTICS CALIFORNIA LLC, a California corporation; FOXCONN ASSEMBLY LLC, a Texas corporation; HUMAN BEES, INC., a California corporation; PEAK TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV485318 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05834. On April 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in the State Court Action. The FAC asserts putative class claims for an alleged: Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime, Failure to Pay Proper Reporting Time Wages, Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay, Failure to Pay Proper Vacation Wages, Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements under Labor Code Section 226(a), Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages, Failure to Indemnify, Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200. It also pursues an eleventh claim for civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 2698.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melis Atalay, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: melis.atalay@ogletree.com - and - Ori Lavi, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: ori.lavi@ogletree.com FURNITURE MART: Class Settlement in Logan Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Logan v. Furniture Mart USA, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-04018-RAL (D.S.D.), the Hon. Judge Lange entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class defined in the Settlement Agreement as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Personal Information was potentially compromised in the Data Breach." Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Defendant and any of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (ii) all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out; (iii) any and all federal, state, or local governments, including but not limited to their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels and/or subdivisions; (iv) the attorneys representing the Parties in the Lawsuit; (v) all judges assigned to hear any aspect of the Lawsuit, as well as their immediate family members; and (vi) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the potential Data Breach, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. -- The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Christine Logan, Gabriel Hilmar, and Austin Hinkle as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. -- The Court finds the following counsel are experienced and adequate counsel and appoints them as Class Counsel for the Settlement: Brett Waltner of Myers Billion, LLP; Leigh S. Montgomery of Ellzey Kherkher Sanford Montgomery, LLP; and William B. Federman of Federman and Sherwood. The Defendant offers home furnishings, mattresses and home decor. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZtRa6c at no extra charge.[CC] FYZICAL ACQUISITION: Class Cert. Bid in Herrera Due June 15, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD HERRERA, et al., v. FYZICAL ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, LLC., Case No. 8:25-cv-03551-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Barber entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: The Plaintiff expert disclosure: March 15, 2027 The Defendant expert disclosure: April 15, 2027 Rebuttal expert disclosure: May 3, 2027 Discovery cut-off: June 1, 2027 Class Certification Motion: June 15, 2027 Summary judgment, Daubert, Aug. 1, 2027 and other dispositive motions: The parties shall participate in court-annexed mediation on or before July 16, 2027. A pretrial conference will be held before Judge Tom Barber, in Courtroom 14A, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, on Nov. 15, 2027, at 1:30 PM. Fyzical is an operator of physical rehabilitation centers specializing in balance therapy and wellness programs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MbxAME at no extra charge.[CC] GAMESTOP CORP: Pontiac GERS Files Suit Over CEO Compensation Award ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE CITY OF PONTIAC REESTABLISHED GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders, Plaintiff v. RYAN COHEN, ALAN ATTAL, LARRY CHENG, JIM GRUBE, NATHANIEL TURNER, and GAMESTOP CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2026-0785 (Chancery Ct., Del., June 15, 2026) is a class action to enjoin the vote at GameStop's July 7, 2026 annual meeting on certain proposals (Proposals 4 and 5), which, together, would (i) award up to $35 billion in stock options to the Company's CEO, Defendant Ryan Cohen (the "CEO Compensation Award") and (ii) add 1.5 billion authorized shares to GameStop's Certificate of Incorporation (the "Authorized Share Increase"). Defendant GameStop Corp. offers games, collectibles, and entertainment products through its stores and ecommerce platforms. Defendants Cohen, Attal, Cheng, Grube and Turner are collectively referred to as the "Director Defendants." In their capacities as directors, they are each responsible as fiduciaries to the Company and its stockholders. Plaintiff Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System is a stockholder of GameStop. According to the complaint, Proposal 4 is contingent on a simple bylaw vote, which does not require Cohen to recuse himself. Section 8 of GameStop's bylaws provide: "Unless otherwise required by law, the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation (the "Certificate of Incorporation") or these By-Laws, any question brought before any meeting of stockholders, other than the election of directors, shall be decided by the vote of the holders of a majority of the votes of shares of capital stock represented and entitled to vote thereat, voting as a single class." In part because of the enormity of the CEO Compensation Award, GameStop is separately proposing to approve an amendment to its Charter to increase the number of authorized shares by 1.5 billion shares, more than doubling the number of authorized shares, which currently stands at 1 billion common shares and 5 million preferred shares. The Defendants are soliciting Proposal 5 in violation of the language of the Certificate with respect to increasing the number of shares outstanding, asserts the complaint. Defendants also caused materially false or misleading statements to be disseminated to the stockholders in the Supplemental Proxy Statement, it notes. The acts of Defendants have injured Plaintiff directly by violating the Certificate and providing materially false information in connection with the upcoming stockholder vote on Proposal 5. As a result of these actions of the Director Defendants, Plaintiff has been and will be injured, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Rigby, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 198011 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 E-mail: alexander.rigby@blbglaw.com - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 - and - Michael A. Toomey, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 11 Times Square, 10th Floor New York, NY 10026 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 GAMETIME INC: Agrees to Settle Hidden Fees Class Action for $2.74MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Gametime has agreed to a $2.74 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to disclose ticket fees. The Gametime class action settlement benefits individuals who purchased tickets through the Gametime website or mobile app in California after April 18, 2018, through May 12, 2025. Gametime is a mobile-first ticket marketplace that allows users to buy and sell tickets for sports games, concerts and other events. The company was hit with a class action lawsuit in 2022, claiming it failed to disclose the fees associated with ticket purchases. Plaintiffs in the case say Gametime's failure to disclose these hidden fees violated California law. Gametime has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Gametime settlement, class members can receive a credit voucher. These vouchers will be worth 15% of the initial fees paid by class members, with a minimum voucher value of $5. Credit vouchers will expire 60 months after they are issued. Class members should ensure their email address is up to date by contacting the settlement administrator to receive their vouchers electronically. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 20, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Gametime hidden fees settlement is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the Gametime settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement voucher. Who's Eligible The Gametime class action settlement includes individuals who purchased tickets through the Gametime website or mobile phone application in California after April 18, 2018, through May 12, 2025. Potential Award Credit voucher with a minimum value of $5 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 07/20/2026 Case Name Backer, et al. v. Gametime Inc., Case No. CGC-22-599227, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco Final Hearing 09/09/2026 Settlement Website GametimeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Gametime Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 info@gametimesettlement.com (888) 808-8631 Class Counsel Kashif Haque Alex J. Valle AEGIS LAW FIRM P.C. Defense Counsel Molly Lane MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] GENEDX HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Urges Claim Forms' Submission --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in GeneDx Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: WGS) that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between April 16, 2025 and May 4, 2026. WGS shares closed at $67.93 on May 4, 2026. After the Company's after-hours Q1 2026 earnings disclosure on May 4, 2026, the stock collapsed to $34.51, a loss of $33.42 per share, or 49.20%. To be considered for lead plaintiff, investors must file by August 3, 2026. How the Market Repriced WGS After Corrective Disclosures During the Class Period, GeneDx shares climbed to a high of $167.52, driven by investor confidence in the Company's genomics growth story and the purported benefits of the Fabric Genomics acquisition. The lawsuit contends that this confidence was built on statements that lacked a reasonable factual basis, artificially inflating WGS stock above its true value. The May 4, 2026 after-hours earnings release simultaneously disclosed multiple adverse developments that the complaint alleges had been concealed from investors: -- The Company missed revenue estimates for both its exome and genome testing lines -- Full-year revenue guidance was slashed from $540-$555 million to $475-$490 million, a reduction of approximately $65 million at the midpoint -- A $31.2 million impairment loss was recorded, directly attributable to the Fabric Genomics acquisition -- Blended average reimbursement rates had declined to $3,300, down from over $3,800 just two quarters earlier -- Adjusted gross margin fell from 74% in Q3 2025 to 69% in Q1 2026 -- Management admitted Fabric was best suited only for international markets, contradicting prior broad-application claims The Scale of Alleged Market Distortion The action claims that investors who purchased WGS at or near the Class Period high of $167.52 lost nearly 80% of their investment by the post-disclosure close. Even shareholders who bought at the pre-disclosure close of $67.93 saw nearly half their investment vanish overnight. With over 29.69 million shares outstanding, the single-day decline represented billions of dollars in aggregate shareholder losses. As alleged in the filing, these losses were not caused by general market conditions or industry headwinds. Rather, they resulted from the removal of artificial inflation that had kept WGS shares elevated while material problems with the Fabric acquisition and deteriorating reimbursement rates went undisclosed. "When companies fail to disclose material information, shareholders may suffer significant losses. The magnitude of the WGS decline following this single corrective disclosure raises serious questions about how long these adverse conditions were known internally before investors were informed." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq. ABOUT LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP -- Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. The firm has extensive expertise in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees. For seven consecutive years, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report. Frequently Asked Questions About the WGS Lawsuit Q: How much did WGS stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 49.20%, a decline of $33.42 per share, after the Company disclosed missed revenue estimates, slashed guidance, and recorded a $31.2 million impairment loss tied to its Fabric Genomics acquisition. Investors who purchased shares during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices may be entitled to compensation. Q: When did GeneDx allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from April 16, 2025 to May 4, 2026. The alleged fraud was revealed through corrective disclosures on the Q1 2026 earnings call, causing the significant stock decline. Q: What do WGS investors need to do right now? A: Gather brokerage records including purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact Levi & Korsinsky for a free, no-obligation evaluation at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as a class member. Q: What if I already sold my WGS shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold them. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still participate. Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. You submit a claim form to receive your portion of recovery. Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: Nothing. Securities class actions are handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, no out-of-pocket costs. Q: Can I join a different law firm's lawsuit instead? A: Multiple firms often file competing complaints. The court consolidates and appoints a single lead counsel. Contacting Levi & Korsinsky before August 3, 2026 ensures your losses are considered. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] GOOD BACTERIA INC: Navarette Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeria Navarette, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOD BACTERIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.ITSGOODBACTERIA.COM, Case No. 26STCV19146 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2026), is brought after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.itsgoodbacteria.com (the "Website"), which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL"). The Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of the ARL 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased "Rotating Synbiotic System" (the "Product") from Defendant via the Website. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com GREIF INC: Class Cert. Hearing in Ryan Suit Due Feb. 26, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN et al v. GREIF, INC. et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-40089 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 2, 2022), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting adopting the proposed scheduling order as follows: The Court, however, adds an additional date: an in-person hearing on class certification and Rule 702 motions re: class certification experts shall be set for 10:00AM on Friday, Feb. 26, 2027. The parties should expect this hearing to run until 1:00PM. The Court reserves the right to amend the scheduling order in light of changed circumstances in the future. The nature of suit states Diversity-Personal Injury. Greif is a producer of industrial packaging products and services.[CC] HAAR COMPANY: Duran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Haar Company, et al. The case is styled as Marayah Alejandra Duran, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The Haar Company, Prell Restaurant Group LLC, Case No. 26STCV19152 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Haar Company is a company that operates in the Real Estate 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 HARTFORD, CT: Wright Seeks Final Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WRIGHT, JOHNESHA HARRISON, and JUDITH TIRADO TORRES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, and ANNETTE SANDERSON, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, Case No. 3:23-cv-01285-SRU (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed settlement class, move the Court to: 1. Finally certify the Settlement Class, including each subclass, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)-(3) and (e), for settlement purposes only; 2. Find that the Mailed Class Notice, Posted Class Notice, Mailed Claim Forms, Posted Claim Form, Opt-Out Form and opt-out procedures satisfy Due Process requirements; 3. Enter the Policy and Programmatic Changes reflected in the So-Ordered Stipulation approved by the Court on July 8, 2024 as a final Order of the Court; 4. Authorize the Settlement Administrator to disclose the personal identifying information of each Settlement Class Member who has returned a Claim Form to Class Counsel; and 5. Enter judgment dismissing this action with prejudice. Housing Authority provides public housing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FiRgEI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erick M. Sandler, Esq. Emily M. Ferriter Russo, Esq. Caitlin M. Barrett, Esq. Lauren M. Pipenbacher, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103-1212 Telephone: (860) 275-0138 Facsimile: (860) 881-2459 E-mail: emsandler@daypitney.com eferriterrusso@daypitney.com cbarrett@daypitney.com lpipenbacher@daypitney.com - and - Giovanna Shay, Esq. Kelsey Bannon, Esq. GREATER HARTFORD LEGAL AID 999 Asylum Ave., 3rd Fl. Hartford, CT 06105-2465 Telephone: (860) 541-5061 Facsimile: (860) 541-5050 E-mail: gshay@ghla.org kbannon@ghla.org HIGH TIDE COFFEE: Dancourt Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against High Tide Coffee, LLC. The case is styled as Yulia Dancourt, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. High Tide Coffee, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61772-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. High Tide Coffee -- https://hightidecoffee.com/ -- is a specialty coffee shop offering fresh, direct trade coffee beans that are roasted weekly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Adrian Varona, Esq. PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (786) 703-8810 Fax: (305) 503-9595 Email: jv@plglawyersfl.com HUMACYTE INC: Parties Must Submit Supplemental Report by July 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CUTSHALL v. HUMACYTE, INC. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00954-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Peake entered an order approving the Joint Rule 26(f) Report as submitted and as modified. The parties must submit a Supplemental Local Rule 5.5 Report by July 2, 2026. The deadline to complete depositions on class certification issues of Lead Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' class certification expert (if any) is Dec. 30, 2026, the deadline for the Defendants to file any opposition to class certification is Jan. 14, 2027, the deadline to complete deposition of the Defendants' class certification expert (if any) is Feb. 12, 2027, and the deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to file a reply in further support of class certification is March 1, 2027. The District Judge will determine whether a hearing is necessary on the motion and, if so, when it will be set. The Court notes that all discovery must be completed by Sept. 3, 2027, and that deadline may not be altered by agreement of the parties absent a Court Order. Humacyte engages in the development and manufacture of off-the-shelf, implantable, and bioengineered human tissues. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5yTzto at no extra charge.[CC] IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Myles Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV185201 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 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05768. The Complaint asserts claims for violations under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Consumer Data Access and Fraud Act, Invasion of Privacy under the California State Constitution, and the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Usama Kahf, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 Email: ukahf@fisherphillips.com - and - Xuan Zhou, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Dr. Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9632 Email: xzhou@fisherphillips.com - and - Catherine M. Contino, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Two Logan Square, 12th Floor 100 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (610) 230-2150 Facsimile: (610) 230-2151 Email: ccontino@fisherphillips.com IMPERFECT FOODS: Quiros Sues Over Automatic Renewing Subscription ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Quiros, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMPERFECT FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.MISFITSMARKET.COM, Case No. 26CU032795C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., June 16, 2026), is brought after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.misfitsmarket.com (the "Website"), which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL"). The Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of the ARL 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a grocery delivery (the "Product") from Defendant via the Website. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com IQVIA RDS INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jesus Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and current and former aggrieved employees v. IQVIA RDS INC., a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2603817 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03370-FLA-ACCV. The Complaint alleges eleven causes of action against Defendant under California state law for various alleged wage and hour violations, including: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Authorize and Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Pay All Accrued and Vested Vacation/PTO Wages; Failure to Provide Sick Pay; Failure to Timely Pay Earned Wages During Employment; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Separation; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Unfair Business Practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §§17200 et seq; and civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. Annette L. Rose, Esq. Natalie C. Kreeger, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com arose@seyfarth.com nkreeger@seyfarth.com JACK IN THE BOX: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by July 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gessele et al v. Jack In The Box Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01092 (D. Or., Filed July 9, 2014), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order directing the Parties to confer and then file, not later than July 6, 2026, a joint status report that: (1) describes what remains to be done in this lawsuit before trial, including pending class certification and dispositive motion issues post-remand; and (2) proposes a case management plan for this lawsuit, with dates and deadlines up to, but not including, a final pretrial conference and trial date. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Jack in the Box is an American fast food restaurant chain.[CC] JACK LU: Pagan Sues Over Misrepresented Product Attributes ---------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Pagan, Ariel Ruano, and Chris Sadowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JACK LU, ZHUOXUN YIN, SIDNEY ZHANG, ZHUOJIE ZHOU, EUCLID LABS, INC. d/b/a MAGIC EDEN, ME FOUNDATION, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Case No. 1:26-cv-03608 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2026), is brought arising under New York consumer-protection law and common-law theories because Defendants allegedly misrepresented the product attributes and use cases that gave $ME its consumer and market value on behalf of a nationwide Class under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 and common-law theories of negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. This case is about a company and its founders who promoted a digital token called $ME as a product with real use cases inside a growing Magic Eden ecosystem. A digital token is a tradable digital asset recorded on a blockchain, a shared, tamper resistant ledger maintained by a decentralized network of computers. Consumers were not merely told that $ME was a token that might rise or fall in price. They were told why it would have value: it would be used across multiple blockchain networks, provide voting power over platform decisions, reward users who traded or locked their tokens, later be supported by revenue allocation and buyback programs, and serve as the economic backbone of Magic Eden's expanding digital asset platform. Those promised functions, what crypto marketing materials called "utility", were the basis of the product's value. In ordinary terms, a token with real uses across a large platform is more valuable than a token with no meaningful use. Defendants' promotional campaign created the belief that $ME had, or imminently would have, those uses. The alleged deception is that the use cases did not materialize as represented. The multi-chain marketplace strategy was abandoned in material part. Governance was delayed for approximately nine months. Broad revenue-sharing and staking-reward mechanisms were not implemented until 2026, and the November 2025 buyback program was later changed and discontinued in material part. Trading rewards were not delivered in the represented form. The wallet users were required to adopt for the airdrop was later shut down. The platform pivoted away from the represented multi-chain digital-asset ecosystem and toward Dicey, a crypto casino and sportsbook. Consumers were harmed because they paid for, held, staked, or locked a digital asset whose value depended on represented use cases that were delayed, diminished, abandoned, contradicted, or never delivered as represented, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs acquired, held, staked, or locked $ME in reliance on the appearance of cross-chain use cases, governance rights, revenue sharing, buybacks, staking rewards, and institutional credibility created by Defendants' promotional campaign. Jack Lu is the CEO and co-founder of Magic Eden.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 114 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (646) 762-1080 Email: max@burwick.law JAVVY COFFEE: Rodriguez Sues Over Automatic Renewing Subscription ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebeka Rodriguez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAVVY COFFEE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWWJAVVYCOFFEE.COM, Case No. 26CU032948C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., June 16, 2026), is brought after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.javvvcoffee.com (the "Website"), which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL"). The Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of the ARL 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased "French Vanilla Protein Coffee" (the "Product") from Defendant via the Website. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com JOHN E. RIFE: Soumare Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resolve First Financial. The case is styled as Ousmane Soumare, M.P.B, Lassana Dianifaba, on their own behalf and behalf of others similarly-situated v. JOHN E. RIFE, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director, Philadelphia Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; DAVID J. VENTURELLA, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, acting in their official capacities; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; Case No. 2:26-cv-04332-CH (E.D. Pa., June 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Nagdeman, Esq. John J. Grogan, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC 1717 Arch St., Ste. 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 320-5660 Email: dnagdeman@langergrogan.com jgrogan@langergrogan.com KALIBRATE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Fuel Pricing Software ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Gluckman, writing for Car and Driver, reports that Lawyers have filed a class action suit in federal court alleging anti-trust violations by an AI pricing software company and its customers. Kalibrate Fuel Pricing is used by stations to set the highest possible price that is still competitive. The suit also names about a dozen station operators that are known to use the software. Gas station operators in California are being accused of colluding to keep fuel prices artificially high. The alleged culprit? A piece of software that uses AI to collect and compare non-public pricing and sales figures from participating stations. The tool's maker, Kalibrate Technologies Ltd, is named as a defendant along with about a dozen station operators that use its tech. Also included are unnamed "Doe Corporations," companies that use the software but have not yet been identified. The federal class action suit has been filed in California's Eastern District. While Kalibrate's fuel pricing software is used in other states, a recent amendment to California's anti-trust law provides the basis for the suit there. AB 325, which went into effect on January 1, 2026, amends the state's anti-trust Cartwright Act, adding language specific to the use of common pricing algorithms. The bill was introduced in response to similar tools used to set rent prices in the state. The plaintiffs allege that Kalibrate Fuel Pricing is doing the same kind of cooperative price adjustment. By using the software to automatically set pricing, the suit says, Kalibrate promises stations can maximize both volume and profit while staying locally competitive. The plaintiffs cite research showing that the use of these types of tools by many stations in an area can result in a 4.5 percent increase in fuel prices. The plaintiffs note that Kalibrate's software has a "restoration" feature that allows station operators to initiate or join a coordinated price hike, allowing them to effectively reset prices. The lawsuit also alleges that Kalibrate has shared non-public proprietary pricing information from its customers with prospective clients. Consumers in California already pay the highest gas prices in the country, in part due to being subjected to the highest state gas taxes, which equate to 70.9 cents per gallon. The suit points out that every one-cent increase in prices means an extra $134 million in fuel costs annually for California fuel purchasers. [GN] KANSAS CITY CANNABIS: Faces Class Suit Over 'Cashless ATM' Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Motter, writing for KCTV5, reports that a class action lawsuit alleges Kansas City Cannabis Company deceived customers with hidden fees through a deceptive payment scheme. The Alleged Scheme The lawsuit claims the company uses modified point-of-sale terminals marketed as "cashless ATMs" that misrepresent retail cannabis sales to banks, processors and card networks. According to the petition, no cash is actually dispensed. Instead, the suit claims customers receive marijuana and sometimes "change" in cash, while their debit cards are charged through a system coded to look like legitimate ATM withdrawals. The lawsuit alleges the practice exposes consumers to multiple hidden charges: -- Rounding up to preset increments (e.g., charging $55 for a $52 purchase) -- ATM surcharges (typically $2-$4 per transaction) -- Out-of-network bank fees that would not apply to standard debit purchases Unlike ordinary debit card transactions - which typically carry no consumer fees - the lawsuit asserts these miscoded transactions force customers to pay substantially more than the listed price. Network Rules Prohibit the Practice The suit also notes that major payment networks explicitly ban cannabis sales on their systems because marijuana remains a federal prohibited Schedule I substance. Both Visa and Mastercard have issued compliance warnings against the practice, according to the petition. Specifically, the lawsuit notes that a December 2, 2021, compliance communication, Visa stated: "Visa is aware of a scheme where POS devices marketed as 'Cashless ATMs' are being deployed at merchant outlets and are operating in violation of the Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules . . . Cashless ATMs are POS devices . . . used for purchase transactions, which are miscoded as ATM cash disbursements . . . . Acquirers miscoding POS purchase transactions as ATM cash disbursements are in violation of these requirements." Visa warned that merchants engaging in this scheme "will be subject to non-compliance assessments and/or penalties." Mastercard issued a similar prohibition in July 2023, directing financial institutions to stop facilitating marijuana transactions, stating: "The federal government considers cannabis sales illegal, so these purchases are not allowed in our systems." The Lawsuit's Claims The class action, filed on behalf of all Missouri citizens who purchased cannabis products from KC Cannabis Company using cashless ATMs, alleged violations of: -- Missouri Merchandising Practices Act -- claiming the company engaged in deception, false pretenses and misrepresentation in connection with the sale of merchandise -- Common-law negligent misrepresentation -- alleging the company supplied false information about the nature of transactions -- Unjust enrichment -- claiming the company retained inflated proceeds obtained through deception The petition argues that consumers reasonably believed they were making standard debit card purchases with no additional fees. The lawsuit contends that consumers could not have discovered the miscoding through reasonable diligence, as the practice violates network rules and involves technical payment processing knowledge beyond ordinary consumer awareness. Relief Sought The petition estimates there are "hundreds, and likely thousands" of class members based on the size of the cannabis market and the number of dispensaries KC Cannabis Company operates. The suit seeks: -- Certification of the case as a class action -- Actual and punitive damages -- Restitution and disgorgement of unlawful proceeds -- Declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order prohibiting the company's use of cashless ATMs -- A corrective advertising campaign -- Attorney's fees and costs -- Pre- and post-judgment interest Company Response Pending KCTV5 has reached out to Kansas City Cannabis Company for comment. The company has not yet responded. Both parties are expected to be in court on Oct. 19 for a 9 a.m. case management conference. What This Means for Consumers If you purchased cannabis products from KC Cannabis Company using a debit card and noticed unexpected charges or fees, you may be part of this class action. The lawsuit alleges the company's payment system imposed fees that would not normally apply to standard debit transactions. The case highlights ongoing tension between state-legal cannabis sales and federal payment network restrictions. While Missouri allows retail cannabis sales, major payment processors refuse to process cannabis transactions directly due to federal prohibition. Some cannabis retailers have turned to workarounds like "cashless ATMs," which the suit alleges KC Cannabis Company used to circumvent these restrictions while shifting costs to consumers. The outcome of this case could have implications for how cannabis retailers process payments in Missouri and other states where cannabis is legal at the state level but remains federally prohibited. [GN] KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Electrical System Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Kia has concealed an electrical system defect in certain 2020-2026 Telluride SUVs that can prevent one or more of a vehicle's electronic control modules from going into a low-power "sleep" state when the car is turned off, which can cause the battery to prematurely fail, render critical safety features inoperable, and leave drivers stranded. According to the 40-page lawsuit, the Kia Telluride SUVs at issue are equipped with defective electronic control modules and/or related electrical subsystems that fail to properly regulate the flow of electricity between the 12-volt battery and the alternator, power steering, radio, and other critical vehicle components, which can lead to "parasitic drain" on the battery when a vehicle is turned off and/or an uneven power supply while driving. The filing shares that the alleged defect can manifest quickly, often within months or days of purchase, and can cause an "irreversible" loss of power storage and premature battery failure, among other issues. The complaint says that when a battery drains while a vehicle is turned off, the battery will lack a charge sufficient enough to start the engine, power the cabin lights, or unlock the car via key fob. Further, car batteries have only a limited number of charging cycles, and each charging/draining cycle negatively impacts a battery's ability to hold a charge, the lawsuit explains. Per the suit, repeated and excessive battery depletion will result in the premature shortening of a battery's operation life, and "[n]o amount of external power will correct the issue." The case claims that defendant Kia America has been on notice about the parasitic-drain defect since as early as 2019 through pre-release testing, but has failed to remedy the underlying issue causing the battery problem. The suit accuses Kia of "fail[ing] to acknowledge the existence" of the defect and making "no attempt to repair it." "The Parasitic Drain Defect causes the Vehicles to fail in their most indispensable use, that is, to reliably start the engine," the class action lawsuit summarizes. Class action lawsuit claims Kia Telluride vehicles are not as safe or reliable as advertised The complaint conveys that the Kia Telluride is one of the automaker's most popular models, with U.S. News & World Report in 2025 naming the three-row SUV one of the "Best Cars for Families." Since its launch in 2019, the Telluride has been named the best mid-size SUV "several times over," and Kia "insiders" refer to the vehicle as the "Selluride" due to the car's "unprecedented popularity," the lawsuit says. Per the case, Kia touts the Telluride models at issue as safe, reliable, and "engineered to be capable in a variety of driving conditions" to provide a comfortable driving experience. Kia also represents that the Telluride's battery should last between three and five years, the suit points out. However, the class action lawsuit contends that the electronic control module defect and subsequent parasitic battery drain problem renders the Telluride dangerous and unfit for ordinary use, not to mention poses serious safety concerns for drivers and passengers who may be left stranded long before the expected end of the battery's life. The case states that although Kia touts its 60-month/60,000-mile New Vehicle Limited Warranty, which ostensibly provides repairs for "factory defects," the automaker has failed to provide any resolution to the parasitic battery drain problem. Consequently, the suit relays, consumers have incurred out-of-pocket costs for battery replacements, towing, roadside assistance, and more. "And, because replacement parts do not fix the defect, it is only a matter of time before replacement batteries prematurely drain and need to be replaced," the filing warns. Telluride electrical defect poses "glaring" safety concerns, class action lawsuit says Per the complaint, the Telluride electrical system defect can also cause an array of safety issues while a vehicle is being driven. For instance, as the battery degrades, the dashboard, headlights, and hazard lights may flicker or turn off due to an inconsistent power supply, the suit shares. In severe cases, the dashboard may turn off completely, leaving drivers without speedometer information, and a vehicle may even stall in busy traffic, the lawsuit says. Despite Kia's superior knowledge of the electrical system defect, the automaker has done "little, if anything," to resolve the "glaring" safety concerns the defect presents, the complaint asserts. Who is covered by the Kia Telluride battery drain lawsuit? The Kia Telluride class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who formerly or currently own or lease one or more 2020-2026 Kia Telluride vehicles. How do I sign up for the Kia Telluride lawsuit? Generally, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it is initially filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, class members will typically receive written notice of the deal via mail and/or email with instructions on any next steps and details about their legal rights. Keep in mind that some class action lawsuits take years to settle. If you've purchased or leased a 2020-2026 Kia Telluride, or just want to stay informed about class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] LA LASER CENTER: Agrees to Settle Employment Suit for $985,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that physician assistants or nurse practitioners who worked for LA Laser Center PC, Daniel Taheri M.D. Inc. or LA Business Management Services LLC in California between Oct. 24, 2019, and April 29, 2026, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. LA Laser Center PC agreed to pay $985,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it violated state and federal labor laws. The lawsuit also claimed the company required employees to sign training repayment agreements, failed to reimburse business expenses and did not pay all required wages and overtime. Who are the class members? The settlement covers two main groups of employees: -- California class: All individuals who worked as physician assistants or nurse practitioners for LA Laser Center PC, Daniel Taheri M.D. Inc. or LA Business Management Services LLC in California at any time from Oct. 24, 2019, to April 29, 2026 -- Non-California collective: All individuals who worked as physician assistants or nurse practitioners for the same companies in Arizona or Nevada during the same period, were subject to a training repayment agreement and who timely and validly opt into the settlement How much can class members get? The settlement administrator will distribute the $985,000 settlement fund to eligible employees after it deducts attorneys' fees, administration costs, service awards, Private Attorneys General Act payments and employer-side payroll taxes. The amount each class member will receive depends on several factors, including the number of workweeks they worked during the class period and whether they were subject to a training repayment agreement provision. The settlement administrator will divide the net settlement fund into two main parts: -- PAGA payout fund: For claims under the Private Attorneys General Act distributed to California class members who worked between Sept. 15, 2024, and April 29, 2026 -- Non-PAGA payout fund: The remainder, which is further divided into: -- TRAP fund (90%): For class members subject to a training repayment agreement. California members get a 2x multiplier for each week worked while Non-California collective members get a 1x multiplier. -- Non-TRAP fund (10%): For all California class members based on workweeks worked regardless of TRAP status Payments are subject to tax withholdings: -- The settlement administrator considers 40% of each payment wages that are subject to payroll taxes. -- The settlement administrator considers 60% of each payment penalties and interest that are subject to income tax but not payroll withholdings. No action needed to receive payment California class members do not need to submit a claim form. Eligible class members will automatically receive a payment by mail at the address on file. Those whose address has changed should update their contact information with the settlement administrator to ensure they receive payment. Non-California collective members must endorse and deposit their settlement check within 180 days to opt into the settlement and receive their award. Settlement administrator's mailing address: CAC Services Group, 6420 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 101, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Settlement administrator's phone number: 866-602-2260 Settlement administrator's email address: info@cacsg.com Payout options The settlement administrator will issue payments by physical check mailed to the address on file for each class member unless they update it. $985,000 settlement fund breakdown The $985,000 settlement fund will cover: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $6,500 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $344,750 -- Service awards to class representatives: $10,000 to the class representative and $2,000 to the PAGA representative -- PAGA payment to LWDA: $19,500 (65% of $30,000 PAGA allocation) -- PAGA awards to eligible class members: $10,500 (35% of $30,000 PAGA allocation) -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund Important dates -- California class member opt-out deadline: Aug. 11, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 10, 2026 When is the LA Laser Center settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will mail payments within 28 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged LA Laser Center PC and related companies required physician assistants and nurse practitioners to sign training repayment agreements, failed to reimburse business expenses and did not pay all required overtime and wages. The plaintiffs claimed these practices violated both federal and California labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code and others. The defendant denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation. The settlement also requires LA Laser Center PC to change certain employment practices, such as discontinuing unlawful training repayment agreements and updating reimbursement policies. [GN] LEGION CONTRACTORS: Rosas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legion Contractors, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Ivan Rosas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legion Contractors, Inc, Case No. 26STCV19231 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Legion Contractors, Inc. -- https://legioncontractors.com/ -- offer a wide range of construction services including Civil Construction, Transportation, Utilities, and Parks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Rachmann, Esq. 6200 Canoga Ave, Ste 470 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2467 Email: mike@frontierlawcenter.com LIFELINE EDUCATION: Hutchinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifeline Education Charter School, Inc. The case is styled as Isaiah Jeremiah Hutchinson, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifeline Education Charter School, Inc., Case No. 26STCV19011 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Lifeline Education Charter School -- https://www.lifelinecharterschool.com/ -- is a public, charter school located in Compton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Andrew Lipeles, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 1060 Aviation Blvd, # 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-4024 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: kevin@kallaw.com MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: BC Court Certifies Data Breach Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that the data breach that affected Mackenzie Financial Corp. and InvestorCOM Inc. sparked dual class-action lawsuits. Now, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has partially certified a claim in B.C., alongside the existing action in Ontario. In 2023, communications firm InvestorCOM learned that a group of cybercriminals exploited a software vulnerability to collect private data on investors, potentially including Mackenzie clients. That prompted the filing of proposed class suits against the fund manager and InvestorCOM in both Ontario and B.C. Last year, the case filed in Ontario was certified as a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding for alleged claims of negligence and breach of contract against both companies, and for breach of fiduciary duty/breach of trust against Mackenzie. However, the judge in Ontario declined to certify claims seeking remedies under provincial privacy legislation. The companies are appealing the certification decision, and the investor plaintiffs are appealing the decision not to certify the privacy claims. That appeal has yet to be scheduled, but in the meantime, a court in B.C. has now certified the case filed in that province -- but only for alleged breaches of privacy legislation, ruling that the other claims should be dealt with in the Ontario action. While the plaintiffs in that action argued for certification of the entire case in B.C., the court ultimately ruled that the best option was to just certify the privacy claims in B.C., while leaving the other claims to be resolved in Ontario. "Proceeding in that way gives due consideration to the interests of all parties in each of the relevant jurisdictions, ensures the ends of justice are service for residents of the statutory privacy tort provinces, avoids irreconcilable judgments and minimizes the coordination that will be required in that regard, and promotes judicial economy," the court said in its ruling on June 19. The court also dismissed certain claims for residents of Quebec, and it found that investors can pursue claims to compensate them for the risk of future harm, and for the costs of preventing future harm, but not for the "mental or emotional distress" of having their data exposed. It also ruled that there's no basis for punitive damages in the case. None of the allegations have been proven. [GN] MANATEE MEMORIAL: McClain Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manatee Memorial Hospital, Limited Partnership, et al. The case is styled as Marshall McClain, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Manatee Memorial Hospital, Limited Partnership, Total Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01746 (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Manatee Memorial Hospital, Limited Partnership -- https://manateememorial.com/ -- is a 295-bed, acute-care facility located in Bradenton, Florida, and operated by a subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com MANSUETO VENTURES: Williams Balks at Illegal Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ TARAH WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANSUETO VENTURES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05055 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026) arises from Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent or authorization in violation of the California Penal Code, California's Trap and Trace Law, and duties under applicable common law. Defendant Mansueto is a publisher of print and online publications focused on business, including Fast Company, published online at www.fastcompany.com According to the complaint, the Defendant has installed and deployed data broker software on the Website to secretly collect data about visitors, their devices, locations and views of webpages to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track them on an ongoing basis. The Defendant uses the Website to obtain advertising revenue and to sell subscriptions to Fast Company. The data broker software compiles the collected data and correlates it with extensive external records data brokers already have about most Californians in order to learn the identity of Website visitors, including Plaintiff. Both Defendant and the data brokers behind the software involved benefit commercially and financially from this activity. They benefit because collected visitor data, and the identification of visitors using that data, are used to, among other things, target Website visitors for specific marketing, alleges the suit. Mansueto Ventures LLC operates as a publisher. The Company publishes magazines and periodicals. Mansueto Ventures serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2930 Telephone: (646) 712-4666 E-mail: evanshapiro@taulersmith.com MARZ FARMS INC: Juarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marz Farms, Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Juarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Marz Farms, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE068212 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Marz Farms is a family-owned agricultural business based in Somis, California, specializing in the cultivation of a variety of crops.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com MARZ FARMS INC: Trejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marz Farms, Inc. The case is styled as Manuela Jardinez Trejo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Marz Farms, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE068214 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 16, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Marz Farms is a family-owned agricultural business based in Somis, California, specializing in the cultivation of a variety of crops.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com MCLANE COMPANY: Osborne Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Osborne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCLANE COMPANY, INC. and MCLANE NORTHWEST, Case No. 26-2-07998-1 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05639. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts one claim for failure to pay overtime premium payments in violation of RCW 49.46.130(f) and WAC 296-128 012(1)(a).[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 META PLATFORMS: Judge Denies Summary Judgement in Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge unsealed an order Thursday, June 25, advancing privacy claims against Meta brought by a class of Illinois consumers who say Meta took their voiceprints without permission in violation of an Illinois biometric privacy law. In the order, originally filed on May 20, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston denied Meta's motion for summary judgment, finding the plaintiff provided enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Meta collected her voiceprint. The judge, a Bill Clinton appointee, concluded the plaintiff had shown there were disputed facts regarding whether Meta had collected the plaintiff's voice recording in a way the tech company could identify the plaintiff. She also found that there was enough evidence that Meta possesses the technology to process a voice recording and link it to a user's account and personally identifiable data, such as name, birthday and address, that Meta associates with their account. "Today's decision need not and does not attempt to precisely delineate at what point voice data transforms from a 'mere voice recording,' as Meta puts it, into a 'voiceprint' under BIPA," she wrote in the 12-page order. "For today, it is enough that there is a dispute of material fact regarding whether Meta has collected biometric data that is capable of identifying an individual using technology Meta possesses." The named plaintiff, Natalie Delgado, is an Illinois citizen who says Meta took her voiceprint -- a digital representation of a person's unique voice characteristics -- without complying with the requirements of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. Delgado claims Meta uses the audio input into Facebook or Messenger to create encoded data of the speaker's voice, and that data is then processed with an acoustical model that is then trained and further refined using the voice of a particular speaker, such that the acoustical model can be used to recognize that user by voice. In its motion for summary judgment, Meta argued Illinois biometric privacy law did not apply to "mere voice recordings" alone, nor did it apply to the plaintiff's voice recordings at issue because they do not enable Meta to identify her. In Thursday's order, Illston wrote it did not matter whether Meta actually used the plaintiff's voice data to identify her; it only mattered that the company could. The judge heavily relied on the testimony of the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Singh, who described how Meta had the in-house capabilities to identify speakers using uploaded voice recordings. "In concluding that the digital voice data Meta collects from Facebook and Messenger is data unique to an individual that could be used to identify someone, Dr. Singh points to Meta's in-house capabilities, prior research projects, and success rates of its speaker identification features," Illston wrote, adding that Singh "opines" that Meta "has gone beyond theoretical capability to actual implementation." She continued: "Thus, plaintiff has at least raised a disputed question of fact as to whether Meta has the capabilities to identify plaintiff using her uploaded voice recordings. Meta's argument that there is no evidence that Meta actually identified plaintiff using her voice recordings misses the point." The judge also pushed back on Meta's argument that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would expand Illinois biometric privacy law "beyond recognition," creating potential liability for anyone who has an individual's voice recording and access to speaker-identification technology. "This order does not open the floodgates," she wrote. "This order simply holds that plaintiff has forwarded sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Meta has collected plaintiff's voiceprint." Illston added that she would rule separately on pending motions to seal. Representatives for either party did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Delgado first sued in federal court in California in August 2023 on behalf of herself and a putative class consisting of all natural persons in Illinois from whom Meta created, collected, captured, received, obtained or stored digital voice data, voice characteristics and/or a voice profile. Delgado, on behalf of the proposed class, seeks statutory damages under the act, an injunction and attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2024, Illston denied Meta's motion to dismiss in part, finding the plaintiff didn't need to prove Meta actually used the voiceprint to show the company violated the law. "The court disagrees with defendant that plaintiffs must specifically allege that defendant, in fact, 'used' their biometric data to determine their identities. Instead, plaintiffs must allege that defendant's collection of their biometric data made defendant capable of determining their identities," she wrote. However, Illston did toss class claims that Meta does not properly protect private data once collected and leaves the data open to cyberattacks because the class has not put forward any evidence that ties to how Meta stores their biometric information, ill-gotten or otherwise, violating a section of the act that requires companies protect biometric information from disclosure. [GN] MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Bisquera Sues Over Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Elena Bisquera, Jason Jones, and Chris Valencia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Defendants Technologies, Inc., ML Plus, LLC, and the Defendants of California LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-03296 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants' deceptive practices by misrepresenting the nature and cost of its credit products, in violation of California's consumer protection statutes, including the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and California Financing Law ("CFL"). The Defendants systematically imposes charges that function as interest while misrepresenting them as non-finance charges to obscure the true price of borrowing. The Defendants extends credit to consumers while also charging additional amounts labeled as "turbo fees," "tips," and "monthly membership fees." Although these charges are incident to, and in practice required for, obtaining credit on the timelines consumers need, the Defendants does not classify them as "finance charges." By excluding these charges from the finance charge and annual percentage rate (APR), the Defendants understates the cost of credit in violation of the TILA. It represents to consumers that its loans are "0% APR," misleading consumers into believing that the loans are cheap. When properly characterized as finance charges, these fees dramatically increase the APR of the Defendants's loans, pushing them beyond the maximum rates permitted under California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have paid thousands of dollars to MoneyLion over the past few years in connection with small-dollar loans and cash advances, including charges labeled "turbo fees," "tips," and membership fees. MoneyLion markets itself as a consumer-friendly financial platform offering small-dollar loans and cash advances to financially vulnerable consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah Heinz, Esq. Albert Pak, Esq. PAK HEINZ PLLC 20 F St. NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 505-6354 Email: Noah.Heinz@pakheinz.com Albert.Pak@pakheinz.com MOOG MILITARY AIRCRAFT: Madrigal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moog Military Aircraft LLC, et al. The case is styled as Julio Madrigal, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Moog Military Aircraft LLC, Moog Inc., Case No. 26STCV19008 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 15, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Moog -- https://www.moog.com/ -- has been supplying Superior Engineering and Advanced Technologies to the Military Aircraft market since the company's inception in the 1950's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. Danielle L. Gruppchang, Esq. Melissa Rodriguez, Esq. P. J. Van Ert, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: bdc@blackstonepc.com dgruppchang@blackstonepc.com pjvanert@blackstonepc.com MRO CORP: Reynero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA REYNERO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRO CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04180 (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2026) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff due to Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for common law claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant requires its employees to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime, however, the Defendant does not compensate them for all work performed. The Defendant requires Plaintiff and other employees to perform compensable work tasks off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods. This policy results in employees not being paid for all time worked, including overtime, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action all current and former customer service representatives who are similarly situated to each other in terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure and Defendant's violations of federal and state law. MRO Corporation is a clinical data partner that provides technology and software solutions for the secure and compliant exchange of protected health information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com NATIONAL WELLNESS CENTERS: Fritts Files Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Wellness Centers, et al. The case is styled as Paul M. Fritts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Wellness Centers; National Wellness Providers; Evolution Medical & Aesthetics PLLC; Susan Kelly, FNP, BC-C, individually; Ashly Yount, FNP-BC, individually; Karl Lorenzo Brown M.D., MPH, MBA, individually; Darrell Powell, individually; Case No. 2:26-cv-04238-KML (D. Ariz., June 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. National Wellness Centers -- https://nwc.health/ -- offers regenerative cell therapy and stem cell therapy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC 7508 N 59th Ave. Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (623) 826-5593 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fernando Garcia, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. NEOVIA LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2603822 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03314. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts: Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay All Accrued and Vested Vacation/PTO Wages; Failure to Provide Sick Pay; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Pay Wages Timely During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tracie Childs, Esq. Keenan P. O'Connor, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: tracie.childs@ogletree.com keenan.oconnor@ogletree.com NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS: Drohman Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Blake Drohman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER BEATRICE, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER DODGE CITY, LLC; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1–20, Case No. 1:26-cv-00282 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01182-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (332) 910-5229 Email: jonathan@moka.law NUTRIEN AG: Hatfield Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Wallace Hatfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER BEATRICE, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER DODGE CITY, LLC; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1–20, Case No. 1:26-cv-03233 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01192-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bridget Fogarty Gramme, Esq. Carmen Anthony Medici, Esq. Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W Broadway, Ste. 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-4565 Fax: (619) 233-0508 Email: bgramme@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com pcoughlin@scott-scott.com NUTRIEN AG: Live Oak Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Live Oak Farms, a California Limited Partnership, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; NUTRIEN, LTD; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Case No. 1:26-cv-04262 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01177-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel M. Ward, Esq. Stephen Richard Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 Email: sward@barrack.com sbasser@barrack.com NUTRIEN AG: Rumbold Price-Fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as MICHAEL RUMBOLD, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03051, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on June 17, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the District of Kansas assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01168-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. This lawsuit seeks both monetary and injunctive relief arising from Defendants' alleged unlawful and ongoing agreement to fix the prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers (individually and collectively, "NPK Fertilizers") sold and purchased throughout the United States and its territories, from January 1, 2021 to the present day. The Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eddie Hasdoo, Esq. Paxton J. Lozano, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 269−4214 E-mail: ehasdoo@jonesday.com plozano@jonesday.com - and - Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. Alyssa C. Kalisky, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862−2198 Facsimile: (312) 862−2200 E-mail: dlaytin@kirkland.com alyssa.kalisky@kirkland.com - and - Christa Cynthia Cottrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862−7075 E-mail: ccottrell@kirkland.com NUTRIEN AG: Stevens Price-Fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as JAKOB STEVENS AND KYLI KNICKERBOCKER STEVENS D/B/A FIRE CREEK FARMS, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; THE MOSAIC CO.; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02585, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on June 17, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the District of Kansas assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01167-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. This lawsuit seeks both monetary and injunctive relief arising from Defendants' alleged unlawful and ongoing agreement to fix the prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers (individually and collectively, "NPK Fertilizers") sold and purchased throughout the United States and its territories, from January 1, 2021 to the present day. The Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eddie Hasdoo, Esq. Paxton J. Lozano, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 269−4214 E-mail: ehasdoo@jonesday.com plozano@jonesday.com - and - Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. Alyssa C. Kalisky, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862−2198 Facsimile: (312) 862−2200 E-mail: dlaytin@kirkland.com alyssa.kalisky@kirkland.com - and - Christa Cynthia Cottrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862−7075 E-mail: ccottrell@kirkland.com ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Stone Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts, P.C. The case is styled as Susan Stone, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts, P.C., Case No. 2682CV00718 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., June 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts." Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts -- https://orthomass.com/ -- focuses on providing high quality surgical and non-surgical treatment of orthopaedic problems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq., PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC 63 Atlantic Ave 3d floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617)742-9700 PADSPLIT INC: Phillips TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kendalyn Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PadSplit, Inc., Case No. 247439070 was removed from 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61753-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. PadSplit -- https://www.padsplit.com/ -- is an affordable housing tech startup that provides a house-sharing service for the workforce.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Autumn Price George, Esq. GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMIT 6622 Southpoint Drive, Suite 420 Jacksonville, FL 32216 Phone: (904) 659-0057 Email: ageorge@gallowaylawfirm.com PAQ INC: Pablo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PAQ, Inc. The case is styled as Alicia Pablo, Thomas Ayala, individuals on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PAQ, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0006432 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." PAQ, Inc. -- https://www.paqinc.org/ -- retails canned foods and dry goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura M. Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: lms@melmedlaw.com PATHWARD NATIONAL: McAuley Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Daniel McAuley, Jr., H. Edward Carr, James Oestreich, and Tigran Kalaydzhyan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PATHWARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. C-15-CV-26-002831 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04210. The Plaintiffs further allege that Pathward's "substantial assistance" in Paramount's and Heller's alleged fraud and breach of fiduciary duty were "a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' and the Class' damages."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex E. Rogers, Esq. ALEX ROGERS LAW 425 New Commerce Boulevard Wilkes-Barre, PA 18706 Phone: 570-262-8250 Email: arogers@bedwickandjones.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Nichilo, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4000 Email: brian.nichilo@troutman.com - and - Ghillaine A. Reid, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 704-6198 Email: ghillaine.reid@troutman.com PLANNED PARENTHOOD: C.B. Sues Over Online Data Tracking ------------------------------------------------------- C.B., L.M., and D.D., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC. ("PPFA"), PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREATER MEMPHIS REGION, INC., PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHEAST, INC., and PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF FLORIDA, INC., as successor in interest to PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWEST AND CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05201 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2026), is brought to hold Defendants accountable for breaking that trust, to recover for the harms that followed, and to compel Defendants to change their online data tracking and sales practices to honor the privacy promises on which their patients relied. PPFA operates plannedparenthood.org as "America's Most Trusted Name in Sexual Health." They tell the public--repeatedly--that their patients' health information "is protected by state and federal law," and that their independently incorporated affiliates safeguard patient records under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and its implementing regulations. On plannedparenthood.org, PPFA sets up its homepage and "Book an Appointment" pages to automatically activate tracking and advertising scripts from at least sixteen different outside companies—including Meta (Facebook), TikTok, Pinterest, Microsoft Bing, Quantcast, and several ad networks--before a user has even clicked anything on the cookie consent banner. In sum, PPFA discloses to Google what health care service the patient intended to book, their ZIP code, age, and--for abortion patients--their last menstrual period date. PPFA's affiliates then also disclose the additional fact that the same identified person proceeded into the affiliates' medical patient-portal to schedule their desired care. The Plaintiffs and the patients they represent did not come to Planned Parenthood lightly. Some came to obtain common and necessary checkups or preventative care. Other sought counsel or procedures for a standalone medical need. No matter the reason, many arrived carrying fear, uncertainty, or grief, and the simple courage it takes to seek this care in the face of a world that too often punishes the choice to seek it. They came because Planned Parenthood promised them a safe place to do so—and promised, in plain words, that what they shared would stay protected. That promise is why they trusted it with the most private facts of their lives, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs used Planned Parenthood's Website. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA) operates plannedparenthood.org which is one of the most visited reproductive health websites in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 10 Glenlake Parkway, South Tower Ste 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: (404) 205-8400 Fax: (404) 205-8395 Email: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Arturo Peña Miranda, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC 228 Park Avenue South, Suite 97956, New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 433-2993 Email: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com arturo.pena@sterlingtonlaw.com PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE: Skellie Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza Home Mortgage Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Skellie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plaza Home Mortgage Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03590-BAS-SBC (S.D. Cal., June 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Plaza Home Mortgage -- https://www.plazahomemortgage.com/ -- offers conventional fixed rate, conventional ARM, FHA, and VA loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Ingber, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: jingber@zlk.com PRIORITY MANAGEMENT: Rogers Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ebony Rogers and Willona Jean Pierre, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and PMG OPCO-ROYSE CITY LLC d/b/a ROYSE CITY MEDICAL LODGE, Case No. 3:26-cv-01980-N (N.D. Tex., June 16, 2026), is brought against the Defendants seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") about Defendants' willful failure to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees all wages due, including overtime wages. The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees stem from two unlawful practices and policies. First, Defendants implemented a practice of excluding all forms of non-discretionary remuneration from their employees' regular rate for purposes of calculating the overtime rate owed to the employees. Second, Defendants implemented an unlawful policy of automatically deducting meal periods without regard to whether Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were able to take a bone fide meal period, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are currently employed at the Royse City Medical Lodge facility in Royse City, Texas. Priority Management is a privately-owned company which manages and operates 51 skilled nursing facilities and assisted living facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 908-9861 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com - and - Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Phone: (215) 875-3063 Email: apiazza@bergermontague.com - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-4635 Email: crodriguez@bergermontague.com - and - Soledad Slowing-Romero, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler St NE, Unit 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 474-4230 Email: sslowingromero@bergermontague.com PRN AMBULANCE LLC: McElrath Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRN Ambulance, LLC. The case is styled as Shannon McElrath, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRN Ambulance, LLC, Case No. 26STCV20034 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." PRN Ambulance -- https://www.prnambulance.com/ -- is the leading provider of patient logistics services to hospital systems in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gayane Ghandilyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: gayane@tomorrowlaw.com PSC GROUP LLC: Foster Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michaila Foster, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. PSC GROUP LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV186663 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 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05823. In the State Court Action, Plaintiff alleges six causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due During Employment and Upon Separation of Employment; and Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alden J. Parker, Esq. William T. Okamoto, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 Email: aparker@fisherphillips.com wokamoto@fisherphillips.com RALPH LAUREN RETAIL: Depetro Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralph Lauren Retail, Inc. The case is styled as Colleen Depetro, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ralph Lauren Retail, Inc., Case No. EF006410-2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty., June 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Ralph Lauren -- https://www.ralphlauren.com/ -- offers designer clothing for men, women, kids & babies, plus accessories and home furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 RECO PEV LIMITED: Abbasi Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Umair Abbasi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RECO PEV LIMITED DBA KAABO USA, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01107 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06055. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated federal and state statutes related to electronic privacy and wiretapping. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: "When users visit the Website, Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google and Microsoft (the "Trackers") to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. Defendant then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the Website, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers." "The Trackers constitute unlawful wiretapping under Section 2511 of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA")."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erica Graves, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424-239-3400 Facsimile: 424-239-3434 Email: erica.graves@blankrome.com RESOLVE FIRST FINANCIAL: Kelley Files Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resolve First Financial. The case is styled as Tiffany Kelley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resolve First Financial, Case No. 3:26-cv-02084-B (N.D. Tex., June 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Civil Miscellaneous Case. Resolve First Financial -- https://resolvefirstfinancial.com/ -- offers ethical debt resolution services to regain financial control with integrity and transparency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Daniel Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com RIP VAN INC: Brown Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rip Van, Inc. The case is styled as Molly Brown, Jacqueline Dushaj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rip Van, Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-05130 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Rip Van -- https://www.ripvan.com/ -- is a producer and supplier of cookies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick John Klorczyk, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (646) 964-9604 Email: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com RIVIERA FINANCE: Pimentel Files Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Riviera Finance, LLC, Case No. 26-008910-CA-01 was removed from 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-24235-KMM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Riviera Finance LLC -- https://www.rivierafinance.com/ -- provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alina Christiane O'Connor, Esq. MCINTOSH SAWRAN PELTZ & CARTAYA PA 19 West Flagler Street, Suite 920 Miami, FL 33130-4410 Email: oconnor.alina@gmail.com - and - Mitchell David Hansen, Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th St. Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (734) 730-9959 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Wayne Dowers, Esq. John Scott Largen, Esq. GUNTHER LEGAL 1800 Southeast 10th Ave., Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 556-1487 Fax: (954) 969-4980 Email: bwd@guntherlegal.com sll@guntherlegal.com - and - John Gregory Lahey 28 Sunrise Ave. Katonah, NY 10536 Phone: (917) 488-8897 Fax: (914) 232-1278 Email: glahey@defensecounsel.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Fedoroff Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gary Fedoroff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00702 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-11997-FKB-APP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Rocket Mortgage, LLC -- https://www.rocketmortgage.com/ -- formerly Quicken Loans, LLC, is an American mortgage lender, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Kyle Tayman, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 346-4000 Fax: (202) 346-4444 Email: KTayman@goodwinlaw.com ROYO BREAD: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Calorie Content ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Royo Bread Co. Inc. Why: The plaintiffs allege Royo Bread misrepresents the calorie count of its low-carb and keto-friendly bread and bagels. Where: The Royo Bread class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Royo Bread of misrepresenting the calorie count of its low-carb and keto-friendly bread and bagels. Plaintiff Chris Salley and five others filed the class action complaint against Royo Bread on May 28 in New York federal court, alleging violations of various state statutes. According to the complaint, Royo Bread's keto-friendly bagels and other low-calorie bread products are sold online and in various retail locations, including Whole Foods and Amazon. The products are allegedly marketed as low-calorie, keto-friendly options, appealing to health-conscious consumers. Salley claims that the company's products, which include a range of flavors and types, falsely claim to contain fewer calories than they actually do. The Everything Keto-Friendly Bagel, cited as an example, is advertised as having only 80 calories per serving. However, based on its nutritional content, it should contain approximately 204 calories, the class action lawsuit says. Lawsuit: Royo Bread uses 'health-washing' to mislead consumers The class action lawsuit argues that Royo Bread's website claims that its products are significantly healthier and lower in calories compared to regular bread and bagels -- a detail that is crucial for health-conscious consumers. Salley alleges that Royo Bread uses "health-washing" tactics to make its products appear healthier than they are, thus misleading consumers into paying a premium for items that do not deliver the promised health benefits. Salley says the misrepresentations are particularly harmful to individuals who need to monitor their calorie intake due to dietary restrictions, such as those who are obese, diabetic or using weight-loss medications. As a result, she and the other plaintiffs seek to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Royo Bread's products during the applicable statute of limitations period. They are suing for violations of consumer protection laws in New York, California, Illinois and New Jersey, false advertising and unjust enrichment and are seeking certification of the Royo Bread class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, Nature's Bakery is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises its fig bars as "wholesome" and "natural" despite containing synthetic citric acid and excessive sugar. The plaintiffs are represented by Blake Hunter Yagman and Allen Neumark of Yagman PLLC and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC. The Royo Bread class action lawsuit is Salley, et al. v. Royo Bread Co. Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03220, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE: Blakely Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deahdatda Blakely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, a LOUISIANA limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002961 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01041. The Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action against Defendant on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class Members: Failure to Provide Paid Rest Breaks and Pay Missed Rest Break Premiums; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums; Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed in a Timely Manner; Failure to Provide Complete Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; PAGA and Other Penalties; and Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Ethan W. Smith, Esq. Robert Browne, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Phone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 Email: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com ethan.smith@bclplaw.com rob.browne@bclplaw.com - and - Sharon S. Mequet, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Phone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 Email: sharon.mequet@bclplaw.com SAVINGS BANK MUTUAL: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bianca Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE SAVINGS BANK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, a Massachusetts insurance company, d/b/a SBLI.COM, Case No. 26STCV14681 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01536. On May 7, 2026, the Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Class Action Complaint for Unlawful Spamming and Invasion of Privacy. The alleged putative class includes "All California citizens who: received any commercial e-mail promoting any of Defendant's products or services at a California e-mail address where such email(s) contained: a falsified, misrepresented, or forged domain name; falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information; or false or misleading subject line or contents; or visited SBLI.COM and whose interactions, communications, or personally identifiable information were intercepted, collected, or transmitted to any data brokers through the use of tracking pixels, cookies, or similar technologies, without their knowledge or consent."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sean P. Nalty, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: sean.nalty@ogletree.com SAVVY INSURANCE: Stogden Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savvy Insurance Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Josh Stogden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Savvy Insurance Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04634-HBK (E.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. Savvy -- https://savvy.insure/ -- is an innovative technology platform that provides a unique digital home & auto insurance shopping experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Nicholas Jilizian, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 22 Franklin Rodgers Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: alex@paronichlaw.com SMITH & WESSON: Court Allows Mass Shooting Class Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Global News reports that the Supreme Court of Canada will not review a ruling by Ontario's top court allowing survivors of mass shooting to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against a gunmaker. Eighteen-year-old Reese Fallon and 10-year-old Julianna Kozis were killed, and 13 others were injured, when a gunman went on a shooting rampage on Toronto's Danforth Avenue in July 2018. The gunman, who used a stolen semi-automatic handgun made by Smith & Wesson, then turned the weapon on himself. Some of the survivors and their families brought a class action against the gun manufacturer for failing to implement technology that would prevent unauthorized use of the gun, but the claim failed at the certification stage. The motions judge found the plaintiffs' negligence claim didn't meet one of the criteria for certification which requires them to propose issues that are common to the members of the class. Last year, Ontario's Court of Appeal found the motions judge set the bar too high by essentially requiring the plaintiffs to prove their case on its merits at the certification stage. [GN] SOLVENTUM CORPORATION: Brown Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solventum Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Damany Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Solventum Corporation, Solventum Health Information Systems, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02990-KMM-ECW (D. Minn., June 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Solventum Corporation -- https://www.solventum.com/en-us/home -- is an American health care company that was spun off from 3M on April 1, 2024.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brant D. Penney, Esq. Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (651) 287-2100 Email: b.penney@rwblawfirm.com g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com STAFFING SYNERGIES: Sutton Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Taryll Sutton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STAFFING SYNERGIES, INC., an unknown business entity; MENASHA PACKAGING COMPANY, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company; MENASHA CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation; MENASHA GLOBAL, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2613303 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03315. On April 30, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging entitlement to civil penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act (the "PAGA Complaint"). The PAGA Complaint alleges entitlement to civil penalties under PAGA "stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to pay all earned wages twice per month, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ivo Labar, Esq. Rebecca Maclaren, Esq. SAWYER & LABAR LLP 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.262.3820 Email: labar@sawyerlabar.com maclaren@sawyerlabar.com - and - Michael Gogal, Esq. GOGAL LAW OFFICE, PC 5256 S. Mission Road, Suite 703 #5048 Bonsall, CA 92003 Phone: 973.768.6654 Email: michael@gogal-law.com STERLING HEALTHCARE: Tuminella Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAITLIN A. TUMINELLA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. STERLING HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC and ASBURY TOWERS RETIREMENT COMMUNITY INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00424-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., June 15, 2026) challenges labor policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to pay wages and overtime compensation in full and on time based upon Defendants' unlawful and non-neutral Kronos time clock punch rounding schemes. The Plaintiff and her fellow non-exempt, hourly paid coworkers were not properly paid overtime for many hours each worked in excess of 40 each week, particularly hours worked in "training" that were paid at a straight time rate rather than paid at an overtime compensation rate, notes the complaint. Plaintiff Tuminella has been employed by the Defendants as a registered nurse working at its Asbury Towers location from late November 2025 to the present. Sterling Healthcare Management LLC offers rehabilitation services along with long term care services.[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 E-mail: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com - and - Robert J. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 743-0614 Facsimile: (317) 743-0615 E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Sheridan Files Suit in E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategic Education, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Sheridan, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Strategic Education, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01704 (E.D. Va., June 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Strategic Education, Inc. -- https://www.strategiceducation.com/ -- is an education services holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Adair Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Ste. 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 529-0001 Fax: (804) 529-0009 Email: lee@floydpc.com STRATEGY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Strategy Inc (NASDAQ: MSTR, STRF, STRC, STRK, STRD) resulting from allegations that Strategy may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Strategy securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/strategy-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] STRYKER CORP: Bids to Dismiss Cyberattack Consolidated Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Giles Bruce, writing for Becker's Health IT, reports that Stryker has filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated class-action lawsuit stemming from the March 11 cyberattack that disrupted its business operations. Eight current and former Stryker employees sued the medical device maker within 48 hours of the company's announcement of the attack, alleging their personally identifiable information -- including Social Security numbers, financial account data, and driver's license information -- had been compromised. In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, plaintiffs assert seven claims under Michigan law, including negligence, breach of implied contract, and intrusion upon seclusion. Stryker's June 22 motion argues the case should be dismissed on two primary grounds. First, the company says its own investigation, conducted with independent experts, found no evidence that any of the eight plaintiffs' personally identifiable information was accessed, according to court records viewed by Becker's. Chief Information Security Officer Juan Pablo Calderon stated under penalty of perjury that Stryker has not notified any plaintiff that their data was compromised, a legal requirement had any personally identifiable information been accessed. The only plaintiff data found in potentially exposed files were the business email addresses of two plaintiffs, which Stryker argues does not constitute personally identifiable information under Michigan law. Second, Stryker contends that plaintiffs lack Article III standing because any alleged injuries are not traceable to the cyberattack. The company's forensic expert identified that each plaintiff's information had appeared in multiple prior data breaches -- two plaintiffs in at least 20 each -- predating the Stryker incident. Plaintiffs attributed the March hack to Handala, an Iranian nation-state cybercriminal group. Stryker, which develops products and services used in surgical and medical care, is incorporated in Michigan and operates globally. [GN] SUJIT BANERJEE: Fortis Advisors Suit Removed to D. Oregon --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fortis Advisors LLC, solely in its capacity as Stockholders' Representative, and Nahal Shahidzadeh, Shahrokh Shahidzadeh, and Haitham Akkary, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUJIT BANERJEE, RON CANO, WILLIAM JOHNSON, and RAVI KHATOD, Case No. 26CV18193 was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County, to the United States District Court for District of Oregon on June 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01211-SB. Generally, the Complaint alleges that, prior to November 2021, a non-party Courion Holding, LLC offered and sold an estimated $44 million in securities in the course of a merger transaction and that Defendants made misleading representations prior to the consummation of the transaction. The Complaint alleges three claims for relief: Common Law Fraud; Violation of ORS 59.115(1)(b) and; and Violation of ORS 59.135 and ORS 59.137.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas Johnson, Esq. Misha Isaak, Esq. Jacob Goldberg, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: 503.224.3380 Facsimile: 503.220.2480 Email: tom.johnson@stoel.com misha.isaak@stoel.com jacob.goldberg@stoel.com SYSTEM TRANSPORT INC: Diaz Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eduardo Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYSTEM TRANSPORT, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. CIVSB2613310 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03353. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendant failed to pay for all hours worked violation of the California Labor Code ("Labor Code") Sections 1194, 1197; failed to separately compensate piece-rate nonproductive time in violation of Labor Code Section 226.2; failed to reimburse necessary business expenses in violation of Labor Code Section 2802; failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements in violation of Labor Code Section 226; failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination from employment in violation of Labor Code Section 203; and violated California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Seth M. Goldstein, Esq. Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com sgoldstein@nossaman.com mhassell@nossaman.com TALBOTS LLC: Carter Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jane Carter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. THE TALBOTS LLC, a Delaware corporation; KNITWELL GROUP, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV001066 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Napa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06065. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution on behalf of a putative class and multiple subclasses for: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to reimburse business expenses; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and failure to timely pay all final wages due upon separation of employment (waiting time penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com TD BANK NA: Brady Suit Removed to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Brady, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TD BANK NA., Case No. 612419/2026 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03681. In the Complaint, Plaintiff purports to assert state-law causes of action against TD Bank for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay "non-overtime wages"; failure to timely pay wages; failure to provide required wage notices upon hiring; failure to provide required wage statements; failure to properly pay "spread of hours" pay; failure to provide a day of rest.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brendan T. Killeen, Esq. Christopher Pardo, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: 212.309.6000 Fax: 212.309.6001 Email: brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com christopher.pardo@morganlewis.com THG NUTRITION US: Ahmed TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yousuf Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. THG Nutrition US Inc. d/b/a My Protein, Case No. 248896409 was removed from 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-24272-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. THG Nutrition doing business as My Protein -- https://www.myprotein.com/ -- is a retailer of sports nutrition supplements and health and wellness products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Erin Noel Berhan, Esq. DLA PIPER 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 / 25th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 423-8500 Email: erin.berhan@us.dlapiper.com THRIFTY RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DONNA WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THRIFTY RETAIL SERVICES LOGISTICS LLC, d/b/a SERV-U SUCCESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01867 (W.D. Mich., June 15, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and all other hourly employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not include Defendant's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Detroit, Michigan and was employed by Defendant with the job title assistant manager from approximately May 2018 through March 2026. Thrifty Retail Services Logistics LLC is a Grandville, Michigan-based logistics and retail support company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 415-3206 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com jrusch@sommerspc.com TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP: Peterson Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Pamm Peterson, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04213 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02123 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions. Tommy Bahama -- https://www.tommybahama.com/ -- is an island-inspired lifestyle brand that defines relaxed, sophisticated style in men's and women's sportswear, swimwear, accessories, footwear and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq. 4900 O'Hear Avenue, Suite 100 North Charleston, SC 29405 Email: jct@toppefirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick J. Curran Jr., Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1301 K Street NW, Suite 500 East Washington, D.C. 20005-3317 Phone: 202-973-4200 Email: patcurran@dwt.com - and - Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com emilyparsons@dwt.com TRUIST FINANCIAL: Arauz Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Guillen Arauz, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION d/b/a SHEFFIELD FINANCIAL and MATT'S ATV & OFFROAD, Case No. 4:26-cv-00371-MTS (N.D. Okla., June 18, 2026), is brought against Defendants for unlawful discrimination on the basis of alienage in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ("Section 1981"). The Defendants follow a policy of denying full access to credit products, including loans, to applicants who are not U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents. The Plaintiff and members of the Class he seeks to represent were and are unable to access Defendants' credit products without unequal conditions imposed upon them on the basis of their alienage or lack of U.S. citizenship. The Defendants' violations have inflicted harm on Plaintiff, and the Class he seeks to represent, including but not limited to, by providing limited access to credit products, by providing unfavorable terms and conditions, and by causing emotional distress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has lived in the United States since 2002. BB&T merged with SunTrust to form Truist Financial Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin Lizama, Esq. LIZAMA LAW, PLLC 907 S. Detroit Avenue, Suite 1330 Tulsa, OK 74120 Phone: 918-850-2048 Email: marvin@lizamalaw.com - and - Thomas A. Saenz, Esq. Luis L. Lozada, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street, 11th floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Email: tsaenz@maldef.org llozada@maldef.org U.S. BANK: Kline Suit Removed to D. Maryland -------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kurt Kline, individually and on behalf of a class of similar persons v. U.S. BANK, NA AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM HOME EQUITY LOAN-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-HE3 and NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. C-15-CV-26-002831 was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for District of Maryland on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-02458-JRR. The Complaint is based on a mortgage loan related to the property located at 15105 Winesap Drive, North Potomac, Maryland (the "Property"). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action against Defendants: Count One - violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Com. Law Section 13-101 et seq. ("MCPA"), on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated persons (the "Shellpoint Class") against Shellpoint only, and Count Two – a claim for declaratory judgment on behalf of Plaintiff individually under Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 3-409 and Com. Law Section 12-918(a)(2), relating to alleged violations of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law, Com. Law Section 12-901 ("OPEC") against both Defendants.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melissa O. Martinez, Esq. Nicholas B. Jordan, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 500 East Pratt Street, Suite 1000 Baltimore, MD 21202-3169 Phone: (410) 659-4400 Fax: (410) 659-4482 Email: mmartinez@mcguirewoods.com njordan@mcguirewoods.com - and - Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 775-7745 Fax: (804) 698-2018 Email: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com UNCLE G'S: Terlato Seeks to Recover Managers' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN TERLATO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNCLE G'S MANAGEMENT, LLC; NEWCO UG MANAGEMENT, LLC f/k/a UNCLE G'S MANAGEMENT CORP.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S MELVILLE, LLC; NEWCO UG MELVILLE, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S MELVILLE, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S EAST MEADOW, LLC; NEWCO EAST MEADOW, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S EAST MEADOW, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S GREENVALE, LLC; NEWCO UG GREENVALE, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S GREENVALE, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S LEVITTOWN, LLC; NEWCO UG LEVITTOWN, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S LEVITTOWN, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S OF MASSAPEQUA, LLC; NEWCO UG MASSAPEQUA, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S OF MASSAPEQUA, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S MORRIS PLAINS, LLC; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S NORTH BABYLON, LLC; NEWCO UG NORTH BABYLON, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S NORTH BABYLON, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S OF PORT JEFFERSON, LLC; NEWCO UG PORT JEFFERSON, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S OF PORT JEFFERSON, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S OF PORT WASHINGTON, LLC; NEWCO UG PORT WASHINGTON, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S OF PORT WASHINGTON, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S RAMSEY, LLC; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S SAYVILLE, LLC; NEWCO UG SAYVILLE, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S SAYVILLE, INC.; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S SHREWSVILLE, LLC; UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, LLC; NEWCO UG YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, LLC f/k/a UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, INC.; collectively d/b/a "Uncle Giuseppe's Marketplace," Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03570 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and other current and former salaried exempt-paid in-store department/area manager-titled or department/area manager-level positions below the level of Store Manager and Assistant Store Manager who were paid a salary by Defendants but were not paid overtime premiums for working more than 40 hours in a workweek within the applicable limitations period. The Defendants own and operate approximately 13 store locations in New York and New Jersey using the trade name and concept of "Uncle Giuseppe's Marketplace." According to their website, the Defendants jointly operate nine grocery stores in New York and three in New Jersey, with plans to open a tenth location in New York in August 2026.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Telephone: (404) 924-4151 Facsimile: (404) 796-7338 E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com bhilbert@headlawfirm.com UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC: Rebardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Underground Electric Construction Company, LLC. The case is styled as Randall Rebardo, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Underground Electric Construction Company, LLC, Case No. CU26-05931 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., June 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Underground Construction Co., Inc. -- https://www.undergroundconstruction.com/ -- has provided efficient gas, power, airport fueling and telecom construction solutions for 90 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea Amaya, Esq. Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law a.amaya@d.law UNION HOME MORTGAGE: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Home Mortgage Corp. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Union Home Mortgage Corp., Case No. 4:26-cv-04993 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Civil Miscellaneous Case. Union Home Mortgage -- https://www.uhm.com/ -- is an American mortgage loan company based in Strongsville, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Daniel Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com UPBOOST FUNDING: Andrews Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UpBoost Funding LLC. The case is styled as Charlene Andrews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UpBoost Funding LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01575 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. UpBoost Funding LLC -- https://upboostlending.com/ -- are a next-generation financial partner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com VEOLIA SUSTAINABLE: Horton Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zachary Horton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VEOLIA SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS USA WEST, INC., a California corporation, doing business as ENOVITY, INC.; VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-26-636744 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06091. Specifically, Plaintiff's claims are substantially dependent upon the interpretation of Collective Bargaining Agreements that govern the terms and conditions of employment. The claims are, therefore, preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan H. Crosner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: ryan.crosner@ogletree.com - and - Yousaf M. Jafri, Esq. Elizabeth M. Yap, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Ste. 900 San Diego, Ca 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: yousaf.jafri@ogletree.com elizabeth.yap@ogletree.com VICTORY PACKAGING: Chevry Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anna Chevry individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VICTORY PACKAGING, L.P., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2613839 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06655. The Complaint asserts claims for alleged failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to timely pay wages during termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse business expenses; and violation of unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Sehreen Ladak, Esq. Kris Khodaverdian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Sehreen.Ladak@jacksonlewis.com Kris.Khodaverdian@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394.9401 Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com WOODSIDE AUTO PARTS: Andreasova Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Kristina Andreasova, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. NOBLE 33 HOLDINGS, LLC, MAIZON NEW YORK LLC, d/b/a MEDUZA MEDITERRANIA, TOCA MADERA SCOTTSDALE LLC, d/b/a TOCA MADERA, TOCA MADERA LAS VEGAS, LLC, d/b/a TOCA MADERA, TOCA MADERA HOUSTON LLC, d/b/a TOCA MADERA, CASA MADERA WEHO, LLC, d/b/a CASA MADERA, WYNWOOD HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a SPARROW ITALIA, 1587 PRIME KC, LLC, d/b/a 1587 PRIME, MICHAEL TANHA, and TOSH BERMAN, Case No. :26-cv-05136 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, due to time-shaving, unpaid wages, due to unlawful tip retention, unpaid wages, due to a failure to reimburse uniform expenses, including uniform maintenance expenses, liquidated damages, unpaid call-in pay premiums, unreimbursed tools of the trade, statutory penalties due to WTPA violations, and attorneys' fees and costs. Even though Defendants required Plaintiff and tipped employees to engage in non-tipped activities in excess of 2 hours or 20% of the total hours worked each shift, Defendants improperly claimed tip credit for all hours worked by tipped employees. Defendants tracked employees' hours through a system in which Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members were prohibited from clocking out without manager approval. Instead, Defendants required employees to look for their managers who would then assess their sidework before allowing employees to leave. Defendants failed to pay all tips owed to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Tipped Subclass Members, in violation of the FLSA and the RSWHL., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a Server at Defendant in September 2023. The Defendants operate restaurants throughout Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New York, and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 YOUR GRANT ADVISOR: Delaney Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Your Grant Advisor, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Delaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Your Grant Advisor, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-07558 (D.N.J., June 24, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Your Grant Advisor, LLC -- https://grantadvisor.org/ -- is a personal finance marketing and media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (989) 574-5262 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com [] B.C. Court of Appeal Allows Opioid Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Page of Lady Smith Chronicle reports that the B.C. Court of Appeal will allow a class action brought by the province against opioid manufacturers to proceed, calling the companies' repeated attempts to relitigate the class certification "unhelpful." David Eby, then B.C.'s attorney general, filed the lawsuit in 2018 against opioid manufacturers to recover the health-care costs associated with the drugs' alleged overprescription and the nationwide addiction crisis that ensued. Chief amongst the claims is that manufacturers promoted the use of opioids for conditions for which they were not suitable, such as chronic pain. A Supreme Court judge had certified this as a class action, allowing it to proceed with the province acting as a representative plaintiff on behalf of all of Canada's provincial, territorial and federal governments. The group of companies -- more than 40 are named in the suit -- appealed. But a three-judge panel unanimously upheld the lower court's decision in a Wednesday (June 24) judgment, finding that the companies were seeking to reweigh evidence to arrive at a different result, which is not the purpose of an appeal. The justices find that the lower court was not only correct procedurally and jurisdictionally, but that this is just the type of case the class action system was designed to facilitate. The B.C. government expects the trial will now begin on schedule, with arguments commencing on Feb. 22, 2028. The court has set aside 80 days to hear the case. B.C.'s claim relies on the 2018 Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which was created to allow the province to pursue this type of litigation. The province alleges that going back to 1996, "the defendants acted in an industry-wide, systemic, and coordinated fashion, which has caused or contributed to a health crisis and burdened the provincial and territorial health care systems with substantial costs." This is not the first appeal decision in the case's long road toward trial. "The certification application and the subsequent appeals are examples of the unhelpful and disproportionate overcomplication of what should be a relatively straightforward inquiry brought early in a proceeding," the judges write in the reasons for judgment. The justices add that this sort of appeal can "undermine the important goals of class action proceedings -- judicial economy and access to justice." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***