260702.mbx

260702.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 2, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 131 Headlines ACCOR SA: Fried Sues Over Use of Synthetic Fragranced Products AFFIRM INC: Deprives Consumers of Information Under ECOA, Suit Says ALLINA HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $12.5MM AMAZON INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thurber Alleges AMERICAN EAGLE: Desai Sues Over False Price-Discounting Scheme AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Stricklen Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. APRIO LLP: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid ASSETMARK INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Warburton Says BIOVIE INC: Common Stock Purchaser Class Wins Certification BLUECROSS: Bid for Leave to File Record Under Seal Partly OK'd BROOK HOSPITALITY: Faces Vega Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. CAMPBELL & CO: Greene Suit Seeks Class Settlement Prelim Approval CEDARS BUSINESS: Stoddart Files Consumer Credit Suit in Texas CENTRUS ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in McGlone Suit Due July 3, 2028 CERTAINTEED LLC: Appeals Privilege Motion Order in Asbestos Suit CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Court Narrows Claims vs. 3 Officers CLINICAL REGISTRY: Walden Sues Over Data Security Incident COCA-COLA CO: Parties Allowed to Seal Documents COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Billingslea Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Halcarz Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Vaughn Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COMMONWEALTH EQUITY: Exploits Cash Programs, Weyler Alleges CONCENTRA HEALTH: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California CONTAINERPORT GROUP: Zeas Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Cosmo Energy Sues Over Royalty Payments CORRAL BOOT: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Cordova Sues Over Privacy Law Violations CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Cordova Suit Over Privacy Law Breaches CROSS RIVER: Walker Sues Over Denial of Credit Card Application CSL PLASMA INC: Woodard Suit Removed to E.D. Washington CYTODYN INC: Class Settlement in Courter Suit Gets Initial Nod DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Parrett Files Suit in W.D. New York DENTAQUEST GROUP: Hufnus Files Suit in D. Massachusetts DIADORA US: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Morris Suit Says DUDE PRODUCTS LLC: Roman Files Suit in N.D. California EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY: Aeschbacher Files Suit in W.D. New York EASTWOOD CARE INC: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ELEVATED STEEL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ENFIELD, CT: Court Dismisses "Clark" Civil Rights Suit ENTERPRISE AMBULANCE: Cisneros Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ENTERPRISE FLEET: Conditional Status of Employee Class Sought EVERTEC GROUP: Lugo Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Goyette Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Yeates Sues Over Telephone Number Listings EZOJ LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property FARMERS INSURANCE: Agrees to $1.25MM TCPA Class Action Settlement FARMERS INSURANCE: Penning Files Suit in N.D. California FCA US: Settlement Deal in Crawford Suit Gets Final Nod FEDERICI BRANDS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 28, 2027 FENDI NORTH AMERICA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIRST CLASS: Falla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Retaliation FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE: Williams Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Hyler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida FIRST SOLAR: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit FIRSTBANK PUERTO: Faces Suit Over Epstein Sex Trafficking Operation FRESENIUS KABI USA: Sosa Files Suit in N.D. Illinois GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Toikach Says GEGC 2: Cordeiro Suit Seeks Class Certification GENEVA ENTERPRISES: Chavez et al. Allege Wage & Hour Law Violations GENTLE SHEPHERD: Mendoza Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Chambers Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice GOD'S LOVE OUTREACH: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GRAVITY SLEEP: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website H&M FASHION: Dancourt Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices HALLER ENTERPRISES: Dovberg Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania HART MECHANICAL: Velasco Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HEALTH CARE FACILITY: Villarin Seeks Final Approval of Settlement HEALTHSPRING LIFE: Masters Suit Removed to S.D. California HEALTHY WEB: Baker Personal Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. HEAR.COM LLC: Sanchez Suit Removed to N.D. California HERTZ TRANSPORTING: Watson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HIWINGO LTD: Cossey Suit Removed to C.D. California HIWINGO LTD: Moore Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama HOLY NAME MEDICAL: Ortega Sues Over Unlawful Interception HOME DEPOT: Sell Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees HOMESPUN GLOBAL: Duncan Sues Over Mislabeled Bedding Products HY-VEE INC: Nicosia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation IMPERIUM LENDING: Frith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Ivey Suit Transferred to D. Utah INSTRUCTURE INC: Doe Suit Transferred to D. Utah INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Roach Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Prudencio Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty IPSOS-INSIGHT LLC: Wang Sues Over Deceptive Commercial E-Mails IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: Dalessndro Balks at Inadequate Data Security JP MORGAN: Bodea Seeks to File Class Cert. Bid Under Seal JPMORGAN CHASE: Aids and Abets Ponzi Scheme, Mendonca Suit Claims K.L. AUTO ENTERPRISES: Coningswood Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York KALSHI INC: Reynolds Suit Transferred to S.D. New York KALSHI INC: Roberts Suit Transferred to S.D. New York KILLER SHRIMP MARINA: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KOCH AG & ENERGY: Cake N Cow Suit Removed to D. Kansas KOCH FERTILIZER: Deline Suit Transferred to D. Kansas LANDAU'S CLEANERS: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LEMONADE INC: $10.5M Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Sept. 10 LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Ortegati Inc. Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LUME DEODORANT: Cooper Sues Over Mislabeled Deodorant Products MARUTI TRANSPORTATION: Yanez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MAYBOURNE BEVERLY HILLS: Lenoir Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MDL 3108: Urological Consultants Suit Transferred to D. Minn. MDL 3187: Dunham's Price-fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. MDL 3187: Union Line Price-fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. MICHELMAN INC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MOSAIC COMPANY: Samuelson Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Wildman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Roberts Balks at Sharing of Drivers' Info NATIONAL CENTER: Zipps Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO: Patch Suit Removed to C.D. California NELSON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Desir Alleges NEUTRON HOLDINGS INC: Neuman Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Hosein Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NEWREZ LLC: Tello Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California NEXT US LLC: Rose Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NISWI LLC: Wins Arbitration Bid in "Wood" NOMAD TRANSIT: Faison Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers NRC ALLIANCE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: Click III Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: Fillingim Farms Suit Transferred to D. Kansas OAK VIEW: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Krabbe Suit Says OAK VIEW: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Wright Alleges OBI SEAFOODS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $380,280 PILOT TRAVEL: Frazier Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. PROEMPIRE LLC: Shelly Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements PROPARK AMERICA: Cisneros Sues Over Labor Law Breaches PUERTAS DINING: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. RHINO RECOVERY: Richardson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages RUGGABLE LLC: Guthre Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Carr et al. Sue Over Inadequate Jail Facilities SISTERS OF CHARITY: Jones Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. STONEBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Toledo Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. SWEATPALS INC: De Armas Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas SYNGENTA CROP: Frierson Files PI Suit Over Paraquat Exposure TAMKO BUILDING: Ressler Files Mass Tort Suit in Florida TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Gummies TECHNIP ENERGIES: Abila Sues for Discrimination, Unpaid OT TOP GOLF: Robinson Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. TPUSA INC: Gagnon Files FLSA Suit in D. Massachusetts TRANS UNION: Goyette Balks at Inaccurate Consumer Report Info TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Buser Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri TRUE FINANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ware Suit Due May 11, 2027 UNITED PARCEL: Faces Farrelly Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Wash. UNITED STATES: Court Upholds Public Right to Hear Removals UNITED STATES: Morris Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee VALLEY STRONG: Bradford Sues Over Denial of Credit Application VEGO INNOVATIONS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VELOPOWER INC: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users WILD OAK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Alleges WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Botto Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls WINGMEN V LLC: Sexton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YVES SAINT LAURENT: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ********* ACCOR SA: Fried Sues Over Use of Synthetic Fragranced Products -------------------------------------------------------------- CELESTIAL FRIED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCOR S.A.; and FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-06336 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. Accor SA operates a chain of hospitality company. The Company owns, manages, and franchises hotels, resorts, and vacation facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com AFFIRM INC: Deprives Consumers of Information Under ECOA, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AFFIRM, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-04996 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Plaintiff applied for a loan from Defendant. On June 10, 2026, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying Plaintiff's loan application. According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically deprives consumers of information they are entitled to under the ECOA. The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with the specific reasons for the credit denial, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated defined as follows: All individuals within the United States (1) that received an adverse action letter from Defendant; (2) in the last five (5) years; (3) in which the stated basis for the credit denial was "Payment history with Affirm, Length of credit history, and Maximum Allowable Monthly Obligation Amount" The following individuals are excluded from the Putative Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3) Plaintiff's attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Putative Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or released. The Defendant is an online financial institution that provides loans and other services to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com ALLINA HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $12.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Allina Health System has agreed to a $12,500,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare group installed tracking pixels on its website and webpages that shared patients' private health communications with third parties without consent. The $12.5 million Allina Health System class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 11, 2026. The settlement covers: -- All individuals who were portal users, non-portal bill pay users, and non-portal scheduling users between September 16, 2018 and May 11, 2026 (Group 1); and -- All individuals who were non-portal, non-bill pay, non-scheduling patients between September 16, 2018 and May 11, 2026 (Group 2). Court documents state that there are approximately 2,531,323 people covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Allina Health System pixel settlement can be found at AllinaPixelSettlement.com. Allina settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment from the deal. Court documents state that the $12.5 million settlement fund will be split between the two groups of class members, with $10,303,098 allocated to Group 1 and $2,196,902 to Group 2. Each class member's payment will be an equal share of the amount that remains in their group's respective settlement fund after the payment of all court-approved settlement costs. To file an Allina settlement claim form, class members can head to this page and log in using the notice ID listed on their copy of the settlement notice and their last name. All Allina Health System settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by September 8, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Allina Health System settlement following a hearing on September 24, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Allina Health System class action lawsuit alleged that the Minnesota-based system of healthcare providers failed to obtain patients' consent before disclosing their personal and health-related information to third parties by way of tracking pixels embedded on its websites. [GN] AMAZON INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thurber Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT THURBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON, INC. D/B/A ONE MEDICAL SENIOR HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06186 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The company relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about its patients, including the archived PII/PHI of former Iora Health Patients, a company acquired by One Medical in 2021. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its third-party file storage system in a data breach. On June 17, 2026, One Medical posted a notice to its website confirming cybercriminals gained access to its third-party file storage system. On June 18, 2026, ShinyHunters, a cybercriminal group, posted to its website claiming responsibility for the breach. In the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails and text messages. Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of his PII/PHI, which violates his rights to privacy, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Scott Thurber is a current patient of Defendant and is a Data Breach victim, having received a warning on his mobile application. Defendant Amazon, Inc. is a primary care provider for adults on Medicare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market St., Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com AMERICAN EAGLE: Desai Sues Over False Price-Discounting Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- NOOPUR DESAI and FLORENCIA STOWERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06216 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) arises from the Defendant's illegal false price-discounting scheme implemented at its brick-and-mortar retail stores and e-commerce website, ae.com in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, discount retailers like Defendant use inflated reference prices to manipulate the public's perception of their merchandise, misleading Plaintiffs and other consumers into overestimating a product's quality and value and leading them to believe they are getting a bargain and higher-quality product when buying at a "sale" price. As a result, false price discounting artificially inflates demand for a product, which, in turn, artificially inflates prices, says the suit. In bringing this putative class action complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy this deception and its attendant harm to consumers. Plaintiffs seek all applicable damages, including actual, statutory, and punitive damages as well as equitable restitution and injunctive relief from Defendant arising from its false price-discounting practices. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. is an American clothing and accessories retailer headquartered at SouthSide Works in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Ethan Ames, Esq. Christopher L. Cornelius LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com ethan@lcllp.com chris@lcllp.com AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Stricklen Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JEMEL STRICKLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 26-2 08612-1, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05670 to the proceeding. The complaint sets forth eight causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class under Washington Civil Rule 23: (1) failure to provide rest periods; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) payment of wages less than entitled; (5) failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; (6) unlawful deductions and rebates; (7) failure to pay all wages due at termination; and (8) willful refusal to pay wages. Americold Logistics, LLC provides temperature-controlled warehousing and logistics services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason Harrington, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: jharrington@littler.com APRIO LLP: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER, SYLVIA THOMPSON, LAWSON THOMPSON, RUSSELL DALBA, and KATHRYN DALBA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APRIO LLP (f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI & WYNNE LLP) and ROBERT GREENBERGER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court finds it important to acknowledge that its decision to decline certification of a class is not necessarily reflective of its view of the merits or strengths of the Plaintiffs' claims. It is certainly possible that Aprio and Mr. Greenberger did, in fact, defraud or make misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs and several hundreds of other unnamed investors through the "Syndicated Conservation Easement Strategy" ("SCE Strategy"). But the possibility of fraud and the propriety of certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are two distinct inquiries. The Court's decision not to certify a class is based solely on the lack of sufficient class-wide evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs' claims. If this case moves forward on the litigation path, the Plaintiffs may present evidence to support the substance of their individual claims at summary judgment or at trial, and the Court or a jury will assess that evidence accordingly. The parties are directed to file a joint status report within 20 days of this Order notifying the Court of whether they would prefer to mediate with a private mediator or with a magistrate judge in this district court. If the parties wish to mediate with a magistrate judge, the Court will order and refer the case to the Chief Magistrate Judge for assignment to the next magistrate judge available on the wheel for mediation. If mediation ultimately fails, the Court will schedule a telephone conference with the parties to discuss how best to manage the case moving forward. The Plaintiffs allege that they, along with a class of investors they seek to represent, were fraudulently induced to buy into a flawed tax-saving strategy known as the SCE Strategy. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for each of their remaining claims: "All persons who, for any tax year from Jan. 1, 2008 to the present, inclusive, were members either directly or indirectly through an ownership stake in another entity, in a Syndicated Conservation Easement which claimed a pass-through tax deduction based upon a charitable contribution of a conservation easement, where Aprio prepared the donation-year partnership return for the limited liability company and K-1s for the participants, and where the donation year limited liability company tax return has been audited (examined) by the IRS with regard to the charitable deduction arising from the conservation easement, unless such audit ended with no proposed penalties, interest, or disallowance of the limited liability company's conservation easement pass-through deduction." Aprio is an accounting and business advisory firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DeYfn8 at no extra charge.[CC] ASSETMARK INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Warburton Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAN WARBURTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSETMARK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06154 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident the Defendant became aware of on May 15, 2026. The complaint relates that Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") about its customers. Plaintiff and Class Members received services from Defendant. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems. 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 breach. Defendant's investigation determined that the PII exfiltrated in Defendant's Data Breach includes, at least: names and Social Security numbers. On June 11, 2026, Defendant began sending victims of the Data Breach Notice letters informing them that their PII was accessed and exfiltrated in the Data Breach. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their PII; (iii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (vii) statutory damages; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, says the suit. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Dan Warburton is a resident and citizen of Lafayette, California and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant AssetMark, Inc. 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 Telephone: 954-525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com BIOVIE INC: Common Stock Purchaser Class Wins Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE BIOVIE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00035-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Du entered an order certifying, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a Class consisting of "All individuals and entities that purchased BioVie common stock from Dec. 7, 2022 through Nov. 28, 2023, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any of the foregoing individuals and/or entities have or had a controlling interest. The Court further appoints Plaintiffs Anthony Rinaldi and Mark Hill as Class Representatives and appoints Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel and Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. as Liaison Counsel. BioVie is a pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V63htm at no extra charge.[CC] BLUECROSS: Bid for Leave to File Record Under Seal Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM CUMALANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Steger entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal portion of the administrative record at Doc No. 94 under seal is granted in part and denied as moot in part. 2. The Plaintiff's request to seal Doc. 94-1 is denied as moot. 3. The Defendant shall refile under seal Part 1 of 27 of the administrative record within seven (7) days. 4. The Defendant's renewed motion for leave to file opposition to class certification under seal is granted. 5. The Defendant shall separately file the redacted version of its Response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification within seven (7) days. The Court finds that the over 1,200 pages in Part 1 of 27 are replete with personally identifiable information in which Plaintiff has a strong privacy interest which outweighs the public interest to open access. Further, the voluminous nature of Part 1 of 27 renders redaction impractical. Therefore, Part 1 of 27 is properly sealable. However, the Plaintiff's request is to seal what was filed at Doc. 94-1. Since it is not accessible as an active docket entry—because the Court denied sealing—Plaintiff's request is moot as to sealing Doc. 94-1. Instead, the Court will order Defendant to refile Part 1 of 27 under seal. The Defendant is a health benefit plan company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7DYCtl at no extra charge.[CC] BROOK HOSPITALITY: Faces Vega Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ CELIA VEGA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOK HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC (D/B/A NOVA HOTEL) and NIKUNJ GANDHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05118 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brought this complaint due to Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay one additional hour's pay at the basic minimum wage rate, failure to provide with a written wage notice, failure to furnish accurate wage statement, and violation of tip withholding provisions. Plaintiff Vega was employed by Defendants at Nova Hotel as a housekeeper and general assistant from approximately February 14, 2021 until on or about June 3, 2026. The Defendants own, operate, or control a hotel in Brook Avenue, Bronx, New York under the name "Nova Hotel."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CAMPBELL & CO: Greene Suit Seeks Class Settlement Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GREENE, ZURIEL WILLIAMS, and AUBREY NELSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CAMPBELL & COMPANY SERVICE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:25-cv-05047-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Plaintiffs request that the Court: (1) grant preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement; (2) conditionally certify a Rule 23 Washington state law class for settlement purposes; (3) appoint the Plaintiffs' Counsel as Settlement Class Counsel; (4) appoint CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator; (5) approve the proposed Court-Authorized Notice of Settlement; and (6) set a date for the Final Approval Hearing. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class for work performed under the FLSA and various Washington wage statutes. The Settlement Class consists of approximately 174 technicians, HVAC technicians, electricians, plumbers, residential field leads, groundworkers, and other similar job titles who had company-assigned take-home vehicles who worked for the Defendant from April 18, 2022, through April 20, 2026 ("Settlement Class Period"). Under the terms of the Settlement, the Defendant agrees to pay $885,000 to resolve all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in this Action. Campbell is an established home and commercial services contractor. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ENJxJl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Crotty, Esq. RIVERSIDE NW LAW GROUP, PLLC 601 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 810 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 850-7011 E-mail: mzc@rnwlg.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H. St. NE, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com CEDARS BUSINESS: Stoddart Files Consumer Credit Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cedars Business Services, LLC. The case is captioned as BAMBI STODDART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CEDARS BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00612-JCB-KNM (E.D. Tex., June 5, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for consumer credit violations. Cedars Business Services, LLC is a debt collection agency based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Joseph Awad, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th St. Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (561) 379-9248 Email: samuel@jibraellaw.com CENTRUS ENERGY: Class Cert. Bid in McGlone Suit Due July 3, 2028 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as URSULA MCGLONE, et al., v. CENTRUS ENERGY CORP., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02196-ALM-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Courter M. Shimeall entered an order to establish a revised case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Amendments to pleadings/joinder of Sept. 28, 2026 Parties: Discovery deadline: Dec. 1, 2027 The Plaintiff's expert reports, Feb. 1, 2028 including any class discovery experts: The Defendants' expert reports, April 3, 2028 including any class discovery experts: Motion for class certification deadline July 3, 2028 and dispositive motion deadline: Opposition to class certification and Aug. 3, 2028 opposition to dispositive motions: Reply in support of class certification Sept. 4, 2028 and reply in support of dispositive motions: Centrus is an American supplier of nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hevgQv at no extra charge.[CC] CERTAINTEED LLC: Appeals Privilege Motion Order in Asbestos Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CERTAINTEED LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order partially granting and sustaining and partially denying the Plaintiffs' privilege motion and the Defendants' objection in the lawsuit entitled Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, et al., each on behalf of the estate of DBMP LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CertainTeed LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-30080, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The Privilege Motion seeks compelled disclosure of various materials and testimony withheld for discovery in these proceedings by the Defendants on the basis of privilege. As to the Privilege Motion's first basis, the crime-fraud exception, the Court provides guidance but ultimately declines to decide the question at this time. Additionally, the Court finds that (1) privilege was waived as to certain materials due to draft waiver and (2) certain other materials and testimony are simply not protected by attorney-client privilege. As to the Privilege Motion's second basis for compelled disclosure, the Court finds that a limited at-issue waiver occurred. [BN] Defendants-Appellants CERTAINTEED LLC, et al. are represented by: John R. Miller, Jr., Esq. RAYBURN COOPER & DURHAM, PA 227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 334-0891 Facsimile: (704) 377-1897 Email: jmiller@rcdlaw.net - and - Michael H. Goldstein, Esq. Howard S. Steel, Esq. Douglas H. Flaum, Esq. Gabrielle L. Gould, Esq. Stacy Dasaro, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 813-8840 Facsimile: (212) 409-8404 Email: mgoldstein@goodwinlaw.com hsteel@goodwinlaw.com dflaum@goodwinlaw.com ggould@goodwinlaw.com sdasaro@goodwinlaw.com CHARGE ENTERPRISES: Court Narrows Claims vs. 3 Officers ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as David Finkelstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Andrew Fox et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-CV-4056 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part several motions to dismiss a putative class action complaint alleging securities fraud and common law fraud against former directors, officers, and entities affiliated with Charge Enterprises, Inc. (Charge). The Court ruled that Section 20(a) and common law fraud claims survived only as to Scala, Denson, and Schweller Charge began in May 2003 as a shell company and eventually rebranded as Charge Enterprises, Inc. in January 2021, operating as an electrical, broadband, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure company. Lead Plaintiff David Finkelstein alleged that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions in public filings in connection with events that ultimately led to Charge's bankruptcy and the delisting of its publicly traded shares, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The defendants included former CEO Andrew Fox, former CFO Leah Schweller, former COO and interim CEO Craig Denson (collectively, the Management Defendants), nine director defendants (collectively, the Director Defendants), entities controlled by Kenneth Orr including Korr Acquisitions Group and Korr Value L.P. (collectively, the KORR Defendants), and a group of major lenders led by Arena Investors, LP (collectively, the Arena Defendants). On December 17, 2021, the same day as a publicly disclosed $20 million securities purchase agreement (SPA) between Charge and Arena, Orr and Fox entered into an undisclosed side agreement committing each to transfer 4.5 million shares of Charge common stock to Arena for $2 million. The court dismissed all claims relating to the nondisclosure of the side letter. Scheme liability claims failed because the plaintiffs did not identify any deceptive conduct independent of the alleged omission. Misrepresentation claims against the Director Defendants and the Management Defendants failed for lack of scienter, as neither group was alleged to have known of the side letter's existence. The claim against Fox failed for inadequate pleading of loss causation, as the causal chain between the share transfer and the eventual collapse in Charge's stock price over a year later was too attenuated. On May 9, 2020, interim CEO Phillip P. Scala signed a limited partnership agreement (KORR Value LPA) giving KORR Acquisitions the unfettered power to deny requests by Charge to withdraw its invested capital. The court found that claims against the Management Defendants and Director Defendants other than Scala failed because none of them were alleged to have known of the agreement's existence. However, the claims against Scala survived because the complaint adequately alleged that he signed the KORR Value LPA and therefore knew that subsequent public disclosures regarding Charge's liquidity were materially misleading. Claims against the KORR Defendants were dismissed because the relevant statements predated the class period. Beginning in late 2022, Charge's management privately acknowledged growing liquidity concerns. Over the course of 2023, the management team and Orr negotiated several undisclosed drawdown schedules for returning invested funds, which Orr repeatedly failed to meet. Charge's Q3 2023 quarterly report, released on November 8, 2023, stated that the company had $51 million in cash and cash equivalents and expected sufficient resources to repay Arena's $27.8 million in notes due on November 19, 2023. On an earnings call the same day, Denson and Schweller reiterated those assurances. The court found that the claims against them survived because, as early as April 2023, they knew that the return of funds was critical to servicing the Arena debt, they had agreed to four drawdown schedules that Orr failed to meet, and just two days before the November 8, 2023 filing, Orr again returned only $1 million of a promised $4 million. The court concluded their failure to disclose that risk represented an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care. Claims against Fox were dismissed because the most egregious failures by Orr occurred after Fox's resignation on August 29, 2023, and earlier omissions did not rise to the level of recklessness. Claims against the Director Defendants were dismissed because the complaint's own allegations indicated they did not learn of the firm's liquidity problems until the summer of 2023, after they had signed the relevant public documents. Following SEC and NASDAQ scrutiny, Orr stepped down as Chairman in September 2021 and reduced his shareholding from approximately 40% to 10%, while the Gabriel 613 Trust simultaneously emerged as owner of nearly 20% of Charge's outstanding stock. Claims relating to the nondisclosure of Orr's continuing control of the Trust were dismissed against all defendants for lack of scienter, insufficient knowledge of the side letter, or failure to adequately plead loss causation. Claims relating to Charge's conflict with Arena were dismissed because the August 14, 2023 10-Q had adequately disclosed Arena's position on refinancing and Charge's intention to pursue appropriate action, including potential litigation. Sarbanes-Oxley certification claims were also dismissed for failure to allege what internal controls existed, how the identified problems should have been caught, or how the controls were deficient. The court denied leave to amend the dismissed claims, finding the deficiencies substantive and noting that the plaintiffs had previously been warned against further amendments. The court directed the Clerk to terminate all defendants except Schweller, Denson, and Scala. A copy of the Court's decision dated June 23, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X1Ysuy from PacerMonitor.com CLINICAL REGISTRY: Walden Sues Over Data Security Incident ---------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Walden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLINICAL REGISTRY SOLUTIONS, Case No. 1:26-cv-03745 (E.D.N.Y., June 22, 2026), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals whose Private Information was maintained by Defendant in connection with its data management services, the putative class members. On June 11, 2026, Defendant reported the Data Breach to the California Attorney General, submitting a sample notice letter, and subsequently mailed notice letters to affected individuals. Defendant's disclosures indicated that on April 9, 2026, CRS discovered suspicious activity within its network and that an unauthorized party accessed CRS's network on that date, during which certain files containing patient information from Dignity Health's St. Mary's Medical Center were acquired The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for treatment. Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided Defendant with her sensitive PII and PHI as a patient of Dignity Health's St. Mary's Medical Center, whose patient data was maintained by Defendant CRS. Clinical Registry Solutions is a healthcare data management and clinical registry company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - Christopher E. Torres, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: ctorres@eksm.com service@eksm.com COCA-COLA CO: Parties Allowed to Seal Documents ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-01511-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order as follows: 1. The parties' motion to seal is granted. 2. By no later than July 9, 2026, the parties shall file a sealed and unredacted version of the documents previously indicated. 3. The parties' attention is directed to Local Rule 141 for the proper procedure on filing a sealed document. The parties ask the Court to seal only certain portions of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, a declaration provided by Anya Verkhovskaya, Exhibits 1, 2, 5-7, and 14-23 to Neal Deckant's Declaration. The Court agrees with the parties, and other courts, that the disclosure of propriety information, including contract terms and pricing information, is a compelling reason in a case to seal information. Coca-Cola is an American multinational corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aO4DSC at no extra charge.[CC] COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Billingslea Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Felicia Billingslea, Michael Conrad, Charein Faraj, Michelle Ley, and Stacey Marchand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-03394 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-00990-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property 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: 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 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Halcarz Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Halcarz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-03880 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-00992-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Jimin Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Email: aheo@barrack.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Vaughn Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Thereasa Ilene Harris Vaughn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, TriZetto Provider Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02881 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-00988-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 COMMONWEALTH EQUITY: Exploits Cash Programs, Weyler Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD WEYLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH EQUITY SERVICES, LLC D/B/A COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL NETWORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12832 (D. Mass., June 22, 2026) is a class action to recover damages and to stop Commonwealth's unlawful conduct related to its Core Account Sweep Programs which, inter alia, involved: (1) Commonwealth failing to provide Program Participants with interest rates that tracked prevailing economic and business conditions and the market; (2) Commonwealth violating Program Participants' reasonable expectations to receive market based interest rates; and (3) Commonwealth prioritizing itself over its customers by taking the vast majority of the interest earned on Program Participants' cash for itself. The complaint relates that Commonwealth Equity Services, LLC d/b/a Commonwealth Financial Network is a broker-dealer and investment advisor which offers investment accounts to customers throughout the United States. In its capacity as an investment advisor, Commonwealth offers a suite of investment advisory services and programs, consisting of Commonwealth's suite of Preferred Portfolio Services programs, wealth management, and retirement consulting services, and advisory services programs available through third-party asset managers. The Core Account Sweep Programs include the Bank Deposit Sweep Program and the Advisory Retirement Sweep Program (collectively "Programs") through which Commonwealth automatically transfers free credit balances from its customers' investing accounts into interest-bearing deposit accounts selected by Commonwealth at other institutions, referred to as the "Program Banks." In its Sweep Program Disclosure, Commonwealth informs customers that the Programs "are designed so that, based on economic circumstances, clients receive interest" on their cash. Thus, the purpose of the Programs is for clients to earn interest on their cash. Commonwealth also promises Participants that the "interest rates" earned via the Programs will vary based upon prevailing economic and business conditions. In truth, over the past four years, contrary to Commonwealth's contractual, fiduciary, and common law obligations, as interest rates dramatically increased, Commonwealth used the Programs as a highly lucrative revenue stream and paid paltry, below-market interest rates to Program Participants, alleges the complaint. While Program Banks paid (and continue to pay) high, market-based interest rates on Program Participants' cash, Commonwealth passes along minuscule interest rates, wholly divorced from the market to its customers and pockets the vast majority of the interest earned on Participants' cash for itself by taking a non-market-based fee, says the suit. Because Commonwealth designed, implemented, and operated the Programs to benefit itself at the expense of its customers in violation of its fiduciary duty and express and implied promises, and acted unfairly and deceptively, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Classes, brings this class action to enjoin Commonwealth's conduct and remedy the significant financial harm caused by Commonwealth to Program Participants. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Classes, asserts claims against Commonwealth for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Edward Weyler has been a customer of Commonwealth since 2016.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ferenc Karoly, Esq. LYNCH & PINE One Park Row, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-3306 Facsimile: (401) 274-3326 E-mail: fkaroly@lynchpine.com - and – Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq. Daniel S. Dicce, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com myeates@ktmc.com jjacobson@ktmc.com ddicce@ktmc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com CONCENTRA HEALTH: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 26STCV13741 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-06585. Through that Complaint, Plaintiff alleges against Defendant the following seven causes of action: in violation of California Labor Codes and Minimum Wage Orders for Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, 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: jared.palmer@ogletree.com - and - Briana LaBriola, 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: briana.labriola@ogletree.com CONTAINERPORT GROUP: Zeas Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as MANUEL ZEAS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CONTAINERPORT GROUP, INC.; ABC CORPS. 1-10, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. ESX-3842-26, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07575 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law for misclassifying him and other drivers as independent contractors and engaging in unlawful payroll practices in violation of New Jersey wage laws. The Plaintiff alleges that CPG made unlawful deductions from his compensation, including for escrow, insurance, tolls, fuel, and related expenses, in violation of the NJWPL. ContainerPort Group, Inc. operates in the transportation service.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dylan C. Goetsch, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 30 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 255-7200 E-mail: dgoetsch@scopelitis.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Cosmo Energy Sues Over Royalty Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- Cosmo Energy, LLC, for itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Continental Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00187-GLJ (E.D. Okla., June 8, 2026) arises out of the Defendant's underpayment and non-payment of royalties on hydrocarbons produced from Oklahoma wells. The Plaintiff and the Class bring claims based on Defendant's improper royalty accounting methods, including Defendant's failure to calculate, report, and pay royalties on the full value and full volume of natural gas and natural gas liquids produced from the wells in which Plaintiff and the Class own mineral interests. The Plaintiff and the Class assert claims for breach of contract and breach of statutory duty. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class now seek to recover royalties underpaid or not paid as a result of Defendant's deduction, assessment, netting, or allocation of processing fees, plant fuel, and transportation, fractionation, and storage fees. Headquartered in Oklahoma City, OK, Continental Resources, Inc. operates as an oil and natural gas company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaille G. Walraven, Esq. Mark E. Walraven, Esq. Megan Maruyama, Esq. Chad P. Smith, Esq. GRAFT & WALRAVEN, PLLC 4801 Gaillardia Parkway, Ste 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73142 Telephone: (405) 253-6444 E-mail: chaille@gwlawok.com mark@gwlawok.com megan@gwlawok.com chad@gwlawok.com CORRAL BOOT: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORRAL BOOT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01019-BHL (E.D. Wis., June 8, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Moreover, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its website fully compliant with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations. Corral Boot Company owns and operates the website, www.corralboots.com, which offers Western-style boots and related footwear products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Cordova Sues Over Privacy Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- YASMINE CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-at-00997 (E.D. Cal., June 8, 2026) alleges the Defendant of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act and intrusion upon seclusion. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant has installed and deployed data broker and advertising platform software on its website, https://adage.com, to secretly collect data about visitors to the website, their devices, locations and activity to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track them on an ongoing basis. In addition, the Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant auctions and sells ad space on the website using and/or transmitting to third parties data about visitors. Headquartered in Detroit, MI, Crain Communications, Inc. owns and operates Ad Age, a publication about advertising and media. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Cordova Suit Over Privacy Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------------ YASMINE CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02108-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal., June 8, 2026) accuses Crain Communications Inc. of using a trap and trace device that violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and of committing intrusion upon seclusion. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant has installed and deployed data broker and advertising platform software on its website, https://adage.com, to secretly collect data about visitors to the website, their devices, locations and activity to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track them on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's installation and use of data broker and advertising platform software without obtaining consent or authorization violated California Penal Code Section 638.51, California’s Trap and Trace Law and duties under applicable common law Defendant owed to Plaintiff and other visitors to the website similarly situated. Headquartered in Detroit, MI, Crain Communications, Inc. operates Ad Age, a publication about advertising and media. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com CROSS RIVER: Walker Sues Over Denial of Credit Card Application --------------------------------------------------------------- DESTINIQUE WALKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROSS RIVER BANK, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01843 (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Defendant's violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In September 2025, the Plaintiff applied for a credit card from Defendant. On September 12, she received an email from Defendant denying her credit application. The email contained a letter that provided the reasons for the credit denial. The adverse action letter stated, in pertinent part: "After reviewing your application, we are sorry to inform you that we are unable to approve you for a Yendo Vehicle Secured Credit Card today, for the following reason(s): Insufficient or inadequate past credit experiences; Approved credit limit lower than Yendo's minimum; and Vehicle value is less than minimum required by Yendo." The adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff was not able to correct the alleged deficiency that led to the credit denial. The Plaintiff was forced to file this action to obtain information he is entitled to under the ECOA. Cross River Bank is a banking institution that provides improvement loans and other financial opportunities to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxwell W. Brooks, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: mbrooks@atlaslawcenter.com CSL PLASMA INC: Woodard Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as April Woodard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CSL PLASMA INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-02483-32 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Spokane, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00266. The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action against Defendant for alleged failure to provide rest periods, alleged failure to provide meal periods, alleged failure to pay overtime wages, alleged payment of wages less than entitled, alleged failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave, alleged unlawful deductions and rebates, alleged failure to pay all wages due at termination, and alleged willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Priya B. Vivian, Esq. Dana K. Mydland, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.223.7000 Email: vivianp@ballardspahr.com mydlandd@ballardspahr.com CYTODYN INC: Class Settlement in Courter Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN JOE COURTER, COURTER AND SONS LLC, DIANE M. HOOPER, THOMAS MCGEE, and CANDRA E. EVANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CYTODYN INC., NADER Z. POURHASSAN, MICHAEL MULHOLLAND, and SCOTT A. KELLY, Case No. 3:21-cv-05190-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice. 1. The Court finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to certify the Settlement Class defined as: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CytoDyn between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants, members of the Defendants' immediate families (as defined in 17 C.F.R. section 229.404, Instructions (1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)(ii)), any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or other individual or entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest, or which is related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants, and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded party. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. 2. The Court also finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it will likely be able to appoint Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and to appoint Lead Counsel Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The Court will hold a settlement hearing on Nov. 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. CytoDyn is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing innovative treatments for multiple therapeutic indications based on leronlimab. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lig9Wg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 The Defendants are represented by: Peter J. Kolovos, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 - and - Adam S. Lurie, Esq. LINKLATERS LLP 601 Thirteenth St. North, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Parrett Files Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delaware North Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Clayton Parrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delaware North Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01242-JLS (W.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Delaware North -- https://www.delawarenorth.com/ -- is an American multinational food service and hospitality company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Aaron Litke, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: tlitke@zlk.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Hufnus Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DentaQuest Group, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Hufnus, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. DentaQuest Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-12851 (D. Mass., June 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DentaQuest -- https://www.dentaquest.com/ -- part of Sun Life U.S., is a purpose-driven health care company dedicated to improving the oral health of all.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com DIADORA US: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Morris Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIADORA U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01020-WED (E.D. Wis., June 8, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on March 16, 2026, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Diadora U.S., Inc. owns and operates the website, www.diadora.com, which offers sportswear and performance clothing for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com DUDE PRODUCTS LLC: Roman Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dude Products, LLC. The case is styled as Rena Roman, Bryan Dawe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dude Products, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-06023 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Dude Products Inc., doing business as DUDE Wipes -- https://dudewipes.com/ -- provides personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY: Aeschbacher Files Suit in W.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eastman Kodak Company. The case is styled as Rick Aeschbacher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eastman Kodak Company, Case No. 6:26-cv-06635 (W.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Eastman Kodak Company (commonly known as Kodak) -- https://www.kodak.com/en/ -- is a legendary American technology manufacturer headquartered in Rochester, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com EASTWOOD CARE INC: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eastwood Care, Inc. The case is styled as Tammy Sue Wilson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eastwood Care, Inc. d/b/a Guardian Care and Rehab Center, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0006055 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Eastwood Care, Inc. doing business as Guardian Care & Rehab Center is located in Manteca, California, and offers round the clock skilled nursing services and rehabilitative care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ELEVATED STEEL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENZO ALVAREZ, individually, and for others similarly situated, v. ELEVATED STEEL, LLC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00023-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Defendant requests a 14-day extension of time, up to and including July 7, 2026, to file its response. The Defendant requires additional time to review the allegations, to audit internal employment records relevant to the putative class, and to adequately brief the facts and legal issues raised by Plaintiff’s motion. This is the first time Defendant has sought an extension to respond to the Motion. On June 9, 2026, the Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification. The Defendant provides a one-stop-shop for customers needing design, fabrication, coating, and installation of steel structures. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ETU9Gn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Charles W. Hoffman, Esq. Cullan E. Jones, Esq. Melany Hernandez, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: 404-888-3800 E-mail: choffman@fordharrison.com cjones@fordharrison.com mhernandez@fordharrison.com ENFIELD, CT: Court Dismisses "Clark" Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Gordon Clark, Plaintiff, v. State of Connecticut, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-CV-1314 (SFR) (D. Conn.), Judge Sarah F. Russell of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Clark's complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend some claims. According to the court, shortly after midnight on October 18, 2020, Mrs. Lillian Clark passed away in the presence of her devoted husband Gordon Clark at their home in Enfield, Connecticut, due to complications of Parkinson's disease, a death deemed natural by Connecticut's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. After Plaintiff Gordon Clark notified the Enfield Police Department, several first responders arrived at his home. Enfield police officers handled and photographed Mrs. Clark's body, instructed Clark to stay out of the room, removed Mrs. Clark's clothes, rolled her over, and took photographs while Clark was in the hallway. Detective Brian Callaghan also took photographs of Mrs. Clark's naked body and informed Clark that he would order a full autopsy. Clark alleged that these interactions caused severe emotional distress and compounded the trauma of losing Mrs. Clark. Clark filed the complaint on October 18, 2022, alleging ten counts, including violations of constitutional law, tort law, contract law, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. He sought money damages and requested that all pictures taken of Mrs. Clark be destroyed. Upon careful examination, the court addressed the claims as follows: Regarding the supervisory officials -- Town Manager Ellen Zoppo-Sassu, Mayor Robert Cressotti, Police Chief Alaric Fox, and John/Jane Doe as Director of Public Safety -- the court found that the complaint alleged no individual actions by these defendants, let alone any actions that violated the Constitution. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to these defendants. On Count One, concerning photographs, Clark alleged that members of the Enfield Police Department violated his substantive due process rights by taking and likely sharing photos of Mrs. Clark's remains without any legitimate governmental purpose. The court found that, unlike the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent in Marsh v. County of San Diego, the complaint contained no factual allegations suggesting that the photographs were actually shared outside the police department. Accordingly, the court dismissed Count One with leave to amend. On Counts Five, Six, and Seven, alleging gender, age, and race discrimination, the court found that the complaint did not relate these facts to the conduct of any particular defendant, nor did it allege that Clark was treated differently than others similarly situated on the basis of those traits. The court therefore dismissed these counts with leave to amend. As to the Section 1983 claims against the Town of Enfield, the court held that because Clark had not stated a claim for an underlying constitutional violation, there was no basis for municipal liability under Monell. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to those claims. Regarding the Section 1985 conspiracy claim, the court found that Clark had not stated a viable claim for discrimination and had not alleged deprivation of any right or privilege. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. Having dismissed all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims raised in Counts Two through Four and Eight through Ten. The court granted Clark leave to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies on or before July 19, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sea5Zm from PacerMonitor.com ENTERPRISE AMBULANCE: Cisneros Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- BLAINE CISNEROS, individually and for others similarly situated v. ENTERPRISE AMBULANCE 2.0 INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-04502 (S.D. Tex., June 8, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from Defendant Enterprise Ambulance 2.0 Inc. The Defendant has employed Plaintiff since approximately June 2024, as a paramedic and director of operations in and around Seabrook, Texas. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the required rates. In addition, Defendant failed to include all compensable time--including time worked during missed, interrupted, or on-duty meal periods--in calculating Plaintiff’s total weekly hours, resulting in underpayment of overtime wages, says the suit. Headquartered in Seabrook, TX, Enterprise Ambulance 2.0 Inc. provides patient transport services for hospitals in South Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ENTERPRISE FLEET: Conditional Status of Employee Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA KILGORE and ERIKA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET MANAGEMENT, INC. and THE CRAWFORD GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00235-MAL (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action and authorizing that notice be sent pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to all similarly situated employees of Defendants, defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid employees of Enterprise Fleet Management who have been employed as "Claims Support Employees" in the job titles of Claims Support Coordinator, Claims Support Representative, Repair Associate, and similar titles, in the past three years, and who have worked hours in excess of 40 per week without receiving overtime compensation for those hours." Enterprise Fleet provides full-service fleet management for mid-market and enterprise organizations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vZ1I9z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq. Callie E. Dydo, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com pmb@mselaborlaw.com ced@mselaborlaw.com - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 E-mail: markp@mp-attorneys.com EVERTEC GROUP: Lugo Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Xiomara Lugo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EVERTEC GROUP, LLC d/b/a EVERTEC, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01401 (D.P.R., June 23, 2026), is brought against Defendant arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its consumers' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals., says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. The Defendant is a transaction processing business providing a broad range of merchant acquiring, payment processing and business solutions services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Douglas H. Sanders, Esq. MILBERG, LLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 600 San Juan, PR, 00907 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Goyette Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS GOYETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01840 (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as a leading global data, analytics, and technology company providing credit reporting, risk management, and identity protection services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Kanee, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1508 SW 23rd Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 Telephone: (848) 346-4358 Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Yeates Sues Over Telephone Number Listings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Yeates, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01572 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2026) is a class action against Experian for violation of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has listed the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of Colorado residents, including Plaintiff and Class Members, in its for-profit directories, without requesting or receiving affirmative consent to post such listings. Experian has profited from its unauthorized commercial listing of Plaintiff's and Class Members' cellular telephone numbers and other personal information while putting the privacy rights of Coloradans at risk, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of all Class Members, to recover civil penalties and other statutorily approved damages and costs pursuant to the law, and to prevent Experian from further violating Plaintiff's privacy rights and those of other Colorado cellular telephone users. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as an information services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com jwesterman@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com EZOJ LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. EZOJ, LLC A/K/A EZOL LLC and PARAISO TROPICAL PIZZA CAFE CORP D/B/A PARAISO TROPICAL PIZZA CAFE A/K/A PARAISO TROPICAL, Case No. 1:26-cv-24382-RAR (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and commercial gas station business, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. EZOJ, LLC A/K/A EZOL LLC owned and managed a commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Agrees to $1.25MM TCPA Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received two or more telemarketing calls or text messages from specific insurance agents marketing Farmers insurance between April 19, 2020, and June 15, 2026, may be eligible to claim up to $160 from a class action settlement. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Co. Inc. and Fire Insurance Exchange (collectively referred to as "Farmers") agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged insurance agents Nickolas Ward, Nate Esparza, Kyle Ryan Gray, Dustin Huffman, Jason Hall, Brian Shirey and LeNard Rhone made telemarketing calls and sent text messages to phone numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, potentially violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. There is a similar TCPA settlement involving insurance agents Todd Henderson Insurance Agency Inc. and/or R. Todd Henderson. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They received two or more telemarketing calls or text messages within a 12-month period from any of the following insurance agents or their agencies: Nickolas Ward, Nate Esparza, Kyle Ryan Gray, Dustin Huffman, Jason Hall, Brian Shirey or LeNard Rhone -- The insurance agents or their agencies made the calls or texts to market Farmers insurance products or services. -- They received the calls or texts between April 19, 2020, and June 15, 2026. -- They registered their phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 30 days at the time they received the calls or texts. -- The phone number is registered to an individual and not a business. Class members must also certify on their claim form that: -- They did not visit any website to request an insurance quote from Farmers or its agents prior to receiving the calls or texts. -- They were not a Farmers customer at the time they received the calls or texts or within 18 months before receiving them. Approximately 12,545 people may have received qualifying calls or texts, according to Farmers Insurance's records. How much is the Farmers Insurance payout? Pro rata payment: Eligible class members who submit a valid claim form can receive a pro rata share of the $1,250,000 settlement fund up to $160 per person. The actual amount each claimant receives will depend on the total number of valid claims submitted and deductions for administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a service award to the named plaintiff. How to claim a settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download and print a PDF claim form to mail or email to the settlement administrator. -- Settlement administrator's mailing address: Heckathorn TCPA Settlement, c/o Atticus Administration, PO Box 64053, St. Paul, MN 55164 -- Settlement administrator's email address: HeckathornTCPAsettlement@atticusadmin.com The claim deadline is Sept. 14, 2026. What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? -- All claimants must provide the phone number that received the calls or texts. -- Online claimants must provide their last name and the claim form login from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Check mailed to the address provided -- Electronic payment (if selected when submitting the claim online) $1.25 million settlement fund breakdown The $1,250,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $72,000 -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $396,666.67 -- Service award to named plaintiff: $11,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Request for exclusion deadline: Aug. 27, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 14, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 23, 2026 When is the Farmers Insurance TCPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments within five days of receipt of funds from Farmers and after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The lawsuit alleged that insurance agents marketing Farmers insurance products made telemarketing calls and sent text messages to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, potentially violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Farmers denies any wrongdoing, but both sides agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of further litigation and to provide compensation to affected individuals sooner. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $160 Deadline: September 14, 2026 [GN] FARMERS INSURANCE: Penning Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. The case is styled as Stacy Penning, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-06124-LJC (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Farmers Insurance Group (informally Farmers) -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is an American insurer group of vehicles, homes and small businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Adam Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 639-9090 Fax: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com FCA US: Settlement Deal in Crawford Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY CRAWFORD, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-12341-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Murphy, III entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement agreement. The Court further orders that: -- The case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. -- The Parties are directed to perform all obligations under the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms. -- The settlement class as defined in the Settlement Agreement, and with applicable exclusions is certified for settlement purposes only. -- The Plaintiffs Bradley Crawford, Christian Christensen, Glenn Brainard, Jacob Lane, Russell Raley, Hank Vanderhulst, Michael O'Brien, Dennis Sullivan, Matthew Ogren, Shaun Graham, Brandon Bailey, Gregory Briggs, Kara Gulbranson, Derek Griesel, Patrick Phelan, James Deale, Paul Maier, Nathan Felker, Greg Gouker, Leroy Mault, Dennis Diaz, Reyes Vargas, Gary Grendahl, Kevin Hunting, Justin Ewing, and Kwaterski Construction, Inc. are appointed as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. -- The Miller Law Firm, PC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, and Robins Kaplan, LLP are appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The case is an automative class action about allegedly defective Exhaust Gas Recirculation ("EGR") coolers in Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Trucks that were manufactured between June 12, 2013 and October 23, 2019. The Settlement Agreement defined the settlement class as: "All individuals who purchased or leased in the United States a Model Year 2014–2019 Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Truck manufactured between June 12, 2013 and Oct. 23, 2019." The Plaintiffs purchased or leased Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel Trucks that were manufactured between June 12, 2013 and Oct. 23, 2019 ("class vehicles"). The vehicles allegedly contained defective Exhaust Gas Recirculation ("EGR") coolers. FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7IW0DY at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERICI BRANDS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 28, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CERKEZOGLU, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FEDERICI BRANDS LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-06108-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: Preliminary motions due: Sept. 30, 2026 Initial expert disclosure due: March 29, 2027 Rebuttal expert disclosure due: April 28, 2027 Motion for class certification due: May 28, 2027 Opposition to motion for class July 27, 2027 certification due: Reply to motion for class Aug. 26, 2027 certification due: Federici provides personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SVrule at no extra charge.[CC] FENDI NORTH AMERICA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fendi North America, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-03045-NEB-EMB (D. Minn., June 22, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.fendi.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 luxury apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, skirts, shorts, denim, sweaters, sweatshirts, jackets, suits, swimwear, jewelry, handbags, shoes, 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 FIRST CLASS: Falla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- GUILLERMO FALLA, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. FIRST CLASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a "ALMA CUBANA," MFP 1200, LLC., also d/b/a "ALMA CUBANA," and MIRKO CIPRIANO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24360 (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2026) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was paid bi-weekly via checks, with paystubs that did not reflect the true number of hours Plaintiff was actually working each week. The Defendants then fired Plaintiff on April 25, 2026 due to discriminatory reasons, says the suit. Plaintiff Falla was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt, full-time restaurant employee from approximately May 2020 to April 25, 2026, or approximately 6 years. First Class Hospitality Group, LLC is engaged in the restaurant industry doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com FIRST FAMILY INSURANCE: Williams Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Family Insurance, LLC. The case is styled as Lori Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Family Insurance, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61738-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. First Family Insurance, LLC -- https://www.firstfamilyinsurance.com/ -- specialize in health insurance and life insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 1650 SE 17th Street 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Hyler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National Bank. The case is styled as Christopher Hyler, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. First National Bank, Case No. 0:26-cv-61748-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. First National Bank (FNB) -- https://www.fnb-online.com/ -- provides a full range of commercial banking, consumer banking and wealth management services plus industry leading online and mobile banking solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com - and - Joseph Loochkartt, Esq. ACCURATE FINANCIAL SERVICES 5301 Waterford District Drive, Suite 520 Miami, FL 33126 Phone: (786) 914-1503 Email: joseph@jibraellaw.com FIRST SOLAR: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against First Solar, Inc. ("First Solar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FSLR) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 26-cv-03787, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired First Solar securities between February 26, 2025 and February 24, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired First Solar securities during the Class Period, you have until August 24, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. First Solar is a solar technology company that provides photovoltaic ("PV") solar energy solutions. First Solar manufactures and sells PV solar modules that convert sunlight into electricity. As relevant here, First Solar's product offerings include its Series 6 Plus PV module, manufactured at facilities in locations including Malaysia and Vietnam. At the outset of the Class Period, Defendants announced that First Solar would reduce production output of Series 6 modules at facilities in Malaysia and Vietnam in 2025, to account for circumstances including, inter alia, an "uncertain U.S. policy environment following the 2024 U.S. elections," and "a supply and demand imbalance for Southeast Asian product". Notwithstanding these circumstances, First Solar reassured investors that its primary market, the United States, enjoyed stable module prices. Then, on April 2, 2025, United States ("U.S.") President Donald J. Trump announced a series of "reciprocal" tariffs on U.S. imports from all countries, including rates of 24% and 46% on Malaysia and Vietnam, respectively, presenting a challenge to First Solar. These tariffs were subsequently reduced to 10%. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to assure investors that the dynamic policy landscape presented a "long term favorable" for First Solar and actually "strengthened [its] relative position in the solar manufacturing industry". The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants had overstated First Solar's capacity to manage the impact of U.S. tariff policy on the Company's business; (ii) Defendants understated the extent to which its responses to U.S. tariff policy, including the intentional underutilization of production facilities in Malaysia and Vietnam, and attempted relocation of production to the U.S., were likely to negatively impact First Solar's projected performance in the 2026 fiscal year; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on January 7, 2026, when Jefferies downgraded First Solar to Hold from Buy, noting that during 2025, the Company had lowered guidance, faced significant de-bookings and experienced margin compression through 2025. Jefferies also flagged that "[international] facilities remain a pain point while tariffs exist" and "underutilization at [international] facilities remains a concern." The Jefferies analyst also predicted that First Solar's deployment opportunities were likely to be more limited in 2026. On this news, First Solar's stock price fell $27.67 per share, or 10.29%, to close at $241.11 per share on January 7, 2026. Then, on February 24, 2026, First Solar issued a press release "announc[ing] financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2025." Among other items, First Solar announced earnings that missed expectations by a wide margin and issued lower-than-expected FY 2026 revenue guidance, citing customer headwinds such as permitting delays under the Trump administration. Following First Solar's announcement, Baird Research downgraded its stock to Neutral from Outperform, citing "several question marks in forward outlook". On this news, First Solar's stock price fell $33.09 per share, or 13.61%, to close at $210.12 per share on February 25, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com[GN] FIRSTBANK PUERTO: Faces Suit Over Epstein Sex Trafficking Operation ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO; and FIRST BANCORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05327 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, FirstBank was Epstein's longest banking partner, a relationship that spanned decades, from 1998 to the present, and was integral in helping him fuel his international sex trafficking operation. As a result of FirstBank's close multi-decade relationship with Epstein, FirstBank acquired a plethora of information regarding Epstein's sex trafficking operation, information that could have put Epstein in prison years earlier if FirstBank had simply properly reported what it knew to authorities. Instead, it chose profit to the detriment of hundreds of victims, alleges the suit. FirstBank Puerto Rico operates as a bank. The Bank provides products and services including saving and fixed deposits, personal and commercial loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Email: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Sigrid McCawley, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com - and - Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Brittany N. Henderson, Esq. EDWARDS HENDERSON 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Email: brad@cvlf.com brittany@cvlf.com FRESENIUS KABI USA: Sosa Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC. The case is styled as Silvia Sosa, individually and on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-07346 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Fresenius Kabi -- https://www.fresenius-kabi.com/ -- is the global leader in supplying blood collection bags and devices, supporting blood banks and healthcare facilities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Toikach Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL TOIKACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-24254 (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harm it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. Between February 25, 2026 and March 2, 2026, an unauthorized actor infiltrated Defendant's network through a phishing scheme and gained access to certain files containing sensitive information. According to Defendant, the files impacted in the data breach contained a wide variety of personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their private information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. The Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. This risk will continue for the rest of their lives, as Plaintiff and Class members are now forced to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and using their private information, says the suit. Gastro Health, LLC is a medical services provider that specializes in treating gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, and digestive health. Defendant has several locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 331312 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com GEGC 2: Cordeiro Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordeiro, et al., v. GEGC 2 New Street, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12901-AK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons who, from Nov. 29, 2019 through the date this Court enters an order on class certification, were tenants of a residential rental property in Massachusetts managed by Greystar and were charged and paid Legal Fees Greystar posted to a tenant's ledger that were not awarded by a court." Excluded are any persons, and any charges, to the extent the fees or costs were the subject of an agreement for judgment in which the person agreed to pay them. Excluded from the Classe is: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) GREP Atlantic, LLC and any entity which GREP Atlantic, LLC has a controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest in GREP Atlantic, LLC and all legal representatives; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, and appoint the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. GEGC 2 is a real estate entity managing multifamily properties. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d1oGHY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com - and - Edward Maginnis, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Rd., Ste. 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 E-mail: emaginnis@carolinalaw.com - and - Sean M.F. Ahern, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 122 Boylston Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 384-0071 E-mail: sahern@law.harvard.edu - and - Courtney Libon, Esq. Kristen Bor-Zale, Esq. GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 371-1234 E-mail: CLibon@gbls.org KBorZale@gbls.org GENEVA ENTERPRISES: Chavez et al. Allege Wage & Hour Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- AARON CHAVEZ ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. GENEVA ENTERPRISES, LLC ET AL., Case No. 1:26-cv-01592 (E.D. Va., June 8, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants' Virginia automotive dealerships and related operations. They include service advisors, technicians, porters, valets, customer care representatives, loaner coordinators, bookers, dispatchers, parts counterpersons, finance managers, service managers, sales employees, detailers, and other employees who were paid through hourly wages, salaries, draws, guarantees, commissions, flat-rate formulas, bonuses, or combinations of these forms of compensation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this class action for unpaid overtime compensation, miscalculated overtime compensation, unlawful wage deductions, unlawful wage forfeitures, restitution, and declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants failed to pay all overtime compensation due at one and one-half times the correct regular rate, including because Defendants failed to include non-discretionary commissions, production payments, flat-rate-hour payments, bonuses, incentive payments, and other remuneration in the regular rate; deducted or failed to pay compensable meal period time and other hours worked; and required employees to bear employer-benefit expenses, debts, penalties, no-show fees, training costs, vehicle-damage costs, property charges, Employee A/R charges, and other kickbacks that reduced wages and overtime required by the FLSA. Based in Reston, VA, Geneva Enterprises, LLC. operates or controls dealerships and related entities within the Rosenthal Automotive group. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: rtucci@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com GENTLE SHEPHERD: Mendoza Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Mendoza, individually and for others similarly situated v. GENTLE SHEPHERD HOME CARE, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00498-MEO-WCM (W.D.N.C., June 23, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). Like the other Day Rate Workers, the Defendant regularly worked more than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime compensation. The Defendant's uniform day rate pay scheme violates the FLSA and NCWHA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers of overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a live-in caregiver from October 2024 to March 2025. Gentle Shepherd is a home care company that provides caregiving services to clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal - and - Bert J. Miano, Esq. MIANO LAW PC 301 South McDowell Street, Suite 125 – Box 1352 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 275-7199 Fax: (704) 630-7199 Email: bmiano@mianolaw.com GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Chambers Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBBIE CHAMBERS AND CONNIE LACEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02984-JKS-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Semper entered a judgment that grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Opinion that presents grounds for proper subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs do not establish standing themselves with respect to any claim to represent similarly situated unnamed class members—let alone those residing in states other than Georgia or Ohio and those who purchased and consumed Fenofibrate, Rosuvastatin, or Colesvelam hydrochloride from the Defendant's recalled lots. The Plaintiffs also provide no allegations that their individually purchased tablets were among those lot numbers the Defendant recalled. The Plaintiffs' economic injury is therefore conjectural or hypothetical and the Plaintiffs "are not entitled to relief under the benefit-of-the-bargain theory." The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant's design and formulation of the drugs are "not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for their intended purpose" and therefore the Defendant breached its reasonable care and contractual duties owed to the Plaintiffs. Glenmark is an Indian multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TDxGQe at no extra charge.[CC] GOD'S LOVE OUTREACH: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against God's Love Outreach Ministries. The case is styled as Brooklyn Elon Allen, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. God's Love Outreach Ministries, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0006785 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." God's Love Outreach Ministries -- https://www.godsloveoutreach.com/ -- is a local non-profit organization that targets the mental health issues within the community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, 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: jm@melmedlaw.com GRAVITY SLEEP: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GRAVITY SLEEP LLC d/b/a GRAVITY BLANKET, Case No. 1:26-cv-05318 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026), is brought against Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its ecommerce Website, www.gravityblankets.com, is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive ecommerce website in a manner compatible with screen-reading technology denied the Plaintiff equal access to the goods and services it provides to non-disabled customers. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to evaluate and purchase the therapeutic sleep products she sought, depriving her of goods necessary to address serious, disability-related health needs. The existence of third-party retail options does not remedy or excuse Defendant's independent obligation under federal, state, and local law to maintain its own website in an accessible manner. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to adopt and implement policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff remains genuinely interested in purchasing Defendant's products directly from Defendant's website and intends to return to www.gravityblankets.com as soon as it is remediated, so that she may independently browse, evaluate, and complete the purchases she was unable to make, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is permanently disabled due to legal blindness. Gravity Sleep LLC d/b/a Gravity Blanket markets itself as a leading provider of therapeutic, science-backed sleep products.[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 H&M FASHION: Dancourt Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yulia Dancourt, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. H&M FASHION USA, INC., Case No. 0:26-cv-61754-MD (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2026), is brought arising out of Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Communications Commission regulations promulgated thereunder ("TCPA") due to the Defendant's unlawful telemarketing practices. To promote its goods and services, Defendant transmitted unsolicited marketing text messages to Plaintiff and other consumers, including messages initiated before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in violation of the TCPA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under the TCPA, and actual damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, arising from Defendant's unlawful telemarketing practices, which intruded upon Plaintiff's and the Class members' privacy and quiet enjoyment of their telephones, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA. H&M Fashion Usa, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation authorized to do business in Florida and doing business as H&M Fashion Usa, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Varona, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Ave Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: 305-506-4746 Email: jv@plglawyersfl.com HALLER ENTERPRISES: Dovberg Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haller Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Marvin Dovberg, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Haller Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-04286-JFL (E.D. Pa., June 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Haller Enterprises, Inc. -- https://hallerent.com/ -- operates as a building contractors and offers plumbing, heating, duct cleaning, cooling, electrical, and video installation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 1669 Edgewood Road, Suite 218 Yardley, PA 19067 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com HART MECHANICAL: Velasco Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- RUDHY VELASCO, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) vs. HART MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., FRANCISCO J. ESTRADA, JR., individually, USA QUALITY DUCT WORK AIR CONDITIONING SERVICE, LLC., and ADRIAN VIERA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24337 (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2026) is a collective action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and for retaliation under laws of the United States. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff worked under the supervision of business owners ESTRADA and VIERA, as well as supervisor Mario Sanchez, at different projects. During the relevant period, Plaintiff worked as an "AC Mechanic", performing duties involving AC duct installations. He was paid a salary of $1,200.00 per week. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked regularly five days per week from Monday to Friday, from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (8.5 hours daily), or a total of 42.5 hours weekly. Plaintiff was deducted 30 minutes for lunch daily, however, Plaintiff's lunch time was always interrupted with work and those 30 minutes daily constituted compensable work hours. Consequentially, Plaintiff is owed 2.5 hours of OT weekly corresponding to the interrupted lunch periods. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff was paid the same amount regardless of the number of hours worked. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff did not clock in and out, however, Defendants used sign-in sheets. Defendants controlled his schedule and activities and Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals were working. Still, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Moreover, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' retaliatory discharge, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, emotional distress, and other damages. Plaintiff is entitled to all remedies available under the FLSA, including back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the suit. Plaintiff RUDHY VELASCO worked for both corporate Defendants, HART and USA QUALITY. Defendants HART MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. and USA QUALITY DUCT WORK AIR CONDITIONING SERVICE, LLC are construction companies and were joint employers of Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com HEALTH CARE FACILITY: Villarin Seeks Final Approval of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANE ROSE VILLARIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE FACILITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a COMMUNICARE FAMILY OF COMPANIES, and WORLDWIDE HEALTHSTAFF SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00097-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for final settlement approval, final class certification, and other relief, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the Plaintiff's motion and enter an order: (1) finally certifying the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3); (2) finally certifying the Settlement Collective under the FLSA; (3) approving the Rule 23 portion of this Settlement; (4) approving the FLSA portion of this Settlement; and (5) approving service award to the Plaintiff. CommuniCare is an owner and operator of healthcare, nursing and rehabilitation centers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XudNdY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hugh Baran, Esq. Susanna Barron, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1702 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 759-4501 E-mail: Baran@KatzBanks.com Barron@KatzBanks.com - and - Patricia Kakalec, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com - and - Ghassan "Gus" M. Shihab, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF SHIHAB & ASSOCIATES, CO., LPA 65 East State Street, Suite 1550 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (877) 479-4872 E-mail: gus@shihab.law - and - Juno Turner, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 N Logan St. Ste 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org - and - Magen E. Kellam, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MAGEN E. KELLAM, P.A. 808 Wiggins Pass Road, Suite 204 Naples, FL 34110 Telephone: (239) 260-4622 E-mail: magenk@kellamlegal.com HEALTHSPRING LIFE: Masters Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Masters, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. HEALTHSPRING LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 26CU018876C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on June 23, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03679-AJB-MMP. On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"), requesting to dismiss Cigna as a defendant and now naming HealthSpring Life & Health Insurance Company, Inc. ("HealthSpring") as the sole defendant.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth N. Smersfelt, Esq. Maya Valluru, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 515 South Flower Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 622-4750 Facsimile: (213) 622-2690 Email: ksmersfelt@crowell.com mvalluru@crowell.com - and - Beatrice B. Nguyen, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 986-2800 Facsimile: (415) 986-2827 Email: bbnguyen@crowell.com HEALTHY WEB: Baker Personal Injury Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case KRISTIN BAKER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEALTHY WEB INC., et al., Case No. 26STCV13931, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 5, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06163-JAK-PVC to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for personal injury claims. Healthy Web Inc. is a health technology software company based in Ottawa, Ontario. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander Vitruk, Esq. Spencer Persson, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 Email: avitruk@bakerlaw.com spersson@bakerlaw.com HEAR.COM LLC: Sanchez Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alicia Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEAR.COM LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a HEAR.COM, Case No. CGC-26-636757 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-06043. The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action in her Complaint: violation of the California anti-spam statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17529.5; violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, Cal. Penal Code Section 638.51; and intrusion upon seclusion. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all California citizens who: received any commercial e-mail promoting any HEAR.COM product 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 HEAR.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: Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: +1 415 773 5700 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 Email: rharlow@orrick.com HERTZ TRANSPORTING: Watson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hertz Transporting, Inc., et al The case is styled as Darius Watson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hertz Transporting, Inc., Hertz Local Edition Transporting Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 26STCV19805 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/us/en/ -- is one of the world's leading car rental and mobility solutions providers.[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 HIWINGO LTD: Cossey Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lamont Cossey, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV02697 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 23, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-06225. The Plaintiff alleges violations of and seeks remedies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Complaint alleges violations of and seeks remedies pursuant to the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA, and failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. John D. Hayashi, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. Zachary Princi, 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 john.hayashi@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com zachary.princi@morganlewis.com HIWINGO LTD: Moore Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derrick Moore, and all others similarly situated v. HIWINGO LTD., Case No. 33-CV-2026-900003.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on June 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01064-HNJ. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's free-to-play online social gaming platform violates Alabama gambling law. Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover under Ala. Code Section 8-1-150(a) because he "spent money to play Defendant's gambling games within the six months preceding the filing of this complaint."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald P. Gillespy, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 251-3000 Fax: (205) 458-5100 Email: ggillespy@burr.com - and - Forrest S. Latta, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 11 N. Water Street, Suite 22200 Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 344-5151 Fax: (251) 344-9696 Email: flatta@burr.com HOLY NAME MEDICAL: Ortega Sues Over Unlawful Interception --------------------------------------------------------- Argelis Ortega and Aisha Wilson Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLY NAME MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case 2:26-cv-07393 (D.N.Y., June 19, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's unlawful interception and disclosure of its patients' and website users' confidential communications through third-party tracking technologies embedded on its website, https://www.holyname.org (the "Website"), in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act,. Through its Website, Defendant invites patients and prospective patients to, among other things, search for medical conditions, identify healthcare providers, schedule medical appointments, pay medical bills, and access patient services, thereby encouraging users to communicate highly sensitive health-related information. Unbeknownst to users, Defendant uses tracking technologies on its Website--including Google Analytics, Google DoubleClick, Microsoft Clarity, Microsoft Bing Universal Event Tracking ("Bing UET"), The Trade Desk ID, Pinterest Tag, and related advertising and analytics technologies—that intercept users' electronic communications in real time and transmit the contents of those communications to third parties. The Defendant's conduct is not accidental. Rather, Defendant knowingly implemented these tracking technologies to monitor users' interactions with its Website and to disclose those interactions to third parties for analytics, marketing, and monetization purposes. These disclosures increase the value of Defendant's digital assets, including its Website, by enabling third parties to build detailed user profiles to help them target individuals with advertising for commercial gain. The Defendant does not disclose that, upon receipt, users' private health information will be transmitted to third parties for marketing and analytics purposes, nor does Defendant obtain users' consent to do so. The Defendant's conduct is ongoing and affects thousands of users like Plaintiffs and others similarly situated who have visited Defendant's Website from New Jersey and across the United States. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury, including the invasion of their privacy, the unauthorized interception and disclosure of their confidential communications and sensitive health-related information, and the loss of control over their sensitive health-related information, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have been Defendant's patient for many years and provided their information to Defendant. Holy Name operates a large integrated healthcare system that includes a 361-bed acute care hospital, specialty treatment centers, a cancer center, a fitness center, a residential hospice, a nursing school, and an affiliated physician network serving patients throughout New Jersey and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER, GRAIFMAN, PERLMUTTER & CARBALLO P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: 845-356-2570 Fax: 845-356-4335 Email: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Lisa Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Rd, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: 602-762-2661 Email: lisa@donbivens.com HOME DEPOT: Sell Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE SELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT STORE SUPPORT, INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; HOME DEPOT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; HOME DEPOT INCENTIVES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1- 20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 2:25-cv-01297-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class defined as: "All current and former employees of Home Depot who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from June 17, 2022, through the date notice is provided to the class." Certification will allow Sell to resolve his claim and those of tens of thousands of identically situated class members in one stroke, making this a quintessential case for class adjudication. Accordingly, the Court should grant class certification, appoint Sell as class representative and his counsel as class counsel, and order the best notice practicable to the class. The Plaintiff Duane Sell has worked for Home Depot as an Associate in its Bellevue, Washington store since Aug. 25, 2020. Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retailer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RSixwf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com HOMESPUN GLOBAL: Duncan Sues Over Mislabeled Bedding Products ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN DUNCAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMESPUN GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06787 (D.N.J., June 9, 2026) asserts claims for unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Homespun Global, LLC to redress and put a stop to the false, deceptive, and unlawful manner in which Defendant has manufactured, labeled, advertised, promoted, and marketed its "Lane Linen"-branded bedding and linen products to consumers. On the labeling and packaging, and in advertising and promotional materials for many of its "Lane Linen" and "Casa Platino"-branded bedding and linen products, the Defendant has represented that such products have thread counts of 1000 and greater. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes, however, the subject products actually contain thread counts of approximately 40% less than what Defendant represents--as independent laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff's counsel has revealed, says the suit. Headquartered in Sayreville, NJ, manufactures, labels, packages, advertises, promotes, and markets bedding and linen products, under several internationally recognized designer brand names, including Lane Linen and Casa Platino. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com HY-VEE INC: Nicosia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Nicosia, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. HY-VEE, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00259-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, June 23, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation and all available damages, penalties and interest related thereto under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Act ("IMWL"), and/or similar laws in effect in other states in which Defendant operated. The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours a week but was not paid overtime compensation for the hours she worked in excess of 40. The Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA resulting in failure to pay overtime wages for work performed by the putative Collective in excess of 40 hours per workweek is further demonstrated by the fact that Defendant received prior complaints from salaried exempt paid department managers that they were misclassified as exempt, but Defendant failed to conduct adequate investigation of its compliance with the FLSA and failed to reclassify the Plaintiff's and Putative Collective's salaried exempt-paid positions to non-exempt-paid. Due to the foregoing, Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages for work performed by the putative Collective and Rule 23 Class Members in excess of 40 hours per workweek was willful and/or reckless, and has been widespread, repeated and consistent, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by and was permitted to work for Defendant in its Peoria, Illinois location as a Bakery Manager from January 2024 through May 2025. The Defendant operates more than 240 retail stores in eight Midwestern states, including Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Fiedler-Carlson, Esq. FIEDLER LAW FIRM, P.L.C. 8831 Windsor Parkway Johnston, IA 50131 Phone: (515) 254-1999 Fax: (515) 254-9923 Email: madison@employmentlawiowa.com - and - C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Phone: (404) 924-4151 Fax: (404) 796-7338 Email: bhilbert@headlawfirm.com ahead@headlawfirm.com IMPERIUM LENDING: Frith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperium Lending, LLC. The case is styled as Shane Frith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Imperium Lending, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-12035-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich., June 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Imperium Lending -- https://www.imperiumlending.com/ -- specializes in providing tailored mortgage solutions with competitive rates and fees, making the mortgage process simple for clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Ivey Suit Transferred to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Emma Ivey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Instructure Holdings, Case No. 5:26-cv-04292 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00572-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Instructure Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.instructure.com/ -- is an educational technology company based in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] INSTRUCTURE INC: Doe Suit Transferred to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-00295 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on June 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00558-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Instructure Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.instructure.com/ -- is an educational technology company based in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas Andrew Hall, Esq. HALL ATTORNEYS, P.C. P.O. Box 1370 Edna, Texas 77957 Phone: +1 713 428 8967 Email: nhall@hallattorneys.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Roach Says ----------------------------------------------------------- HENRY ROACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00562 (D. Utah, June 18, 2026) is a case involving a data breach of Instructure Inc.'s network. The action is brought by the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Nationwide Class, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Instructure is an educational technology company that sells educational software products, including learning management software, to educational institutions. One of the software products that Instructure offers to educational institutions is Canvas. According to the complaint, Canvas collects, obtains, and records information on its users, including names, social security numbers, emails, locations, video recordings, student ID numbers, and other personal information, along with data on student performance and records of student messages. On information and belief, Instructure failed to protect information belonging to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Instructure failed to adopt reasonable security procedures and practices that would keep user information private, including information belonging to minors, the suit alleges. Henry Roach is a resident of North Carolina who enrolled at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in the fall of 2024.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Pehrson, Esq. KNH LLP 50 W. Broadway, 9th Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84401 Telephone: (801) 994-4646 E-mail: cpehrson@knh.law - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Jeff Westerman, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON, P.C. 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com jwesterman@ahdootwolfson.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Prudencio Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- Luiz Prudencio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00561-RJS (D. Utah, June 18, 2026), is brought on behalf of Ana Prudencio, his minor child, and on behalf of the Nationwide Class alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Canvas collects, obtains, and records information on its users, including names, social security numbers, emails, locations, video recordings, student ID numbers, and other personal information,6 along with data on student performance and records of student messages ("Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII"). Instructure failed to protect information belonging to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Instructure failed to adopt reasonable security procedures and practices that would keep user information private, including information belonging to minors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Luiz Prudencio is the natural parent and guardian of Ana Letícia Marques Prudencio, a minor and was a student at Syracuse High School. Instructure is an educational technology company that sells educational software products, including learning management software, to educational institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Toth, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER, P.C. 36 S. State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801.532.7840 Email: jtoth@rqn.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Jeff Westerman, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON, P.C. 2600 W. OLIVE AVENUE, SUITE 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: 310.474.9111 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com jwesterman@ahdootwolfson.com IPSOS-INSIGHT LLC: Wang Sues Over Deceptive Commercial E-Mails -------------------------------------------------------------- CHEN WANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IPSOS-INSIGHT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; IPSOS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06785 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, due to the illegal actions of the Defendants in knowingly and/or willingly engaging in the unlawful practice of advertising in false and deceptive unsolicited commercial e-mails in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. According to the complaint, the spam e-mails sent by Defendant materially violated state law because they contain subject lines that are likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the content or subject matter of the e-mail. The Plaintiff did not give direct consent to Defendant to send Plaintiff any commercial e-mail advertising. The Plaintiff brings this complaint, individually and on behalf of the putative Class, against Defendant for advertising in at least three unsolicited commercial e-mails sent to Plaintiff's California e-mail address beginning on or about December 22, 2025. Ipsos-Insight, LLC provides market research services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Jaimee Hocker, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com jhocker@taulersmith.com IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: Dalessndro Balks at Inadequate Data Security -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Dalessandro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. iRhythm Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06263-AGT (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to implement and follow reasonable data security procedures for Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information that resulted in a data breach. On June 15, 2026, iRhythm disclosed that the company had experienced a cybersecurity incident (the "Data Breach"), in which someone exfiltrated sensitive information, including Plaintiff and other patients' protected health information as well as other personal information. Allegedly, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect patients' private information. In particular, iRhythm maintained the private information in a manner that made it vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the suit. Through this litigation, the Plaintiff aims to determine the scope of the data breach, to obtain relief for the harms that he and others affected by the breach have suffered, and to ensure that iRhythm adopts and implements the procedures necessary to prevent another breach like this from occurring in the future. iRhythm Holdings, Inc. is a healthcare company that specializes in the design, development, and commercialization of device-based technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law - and - Jean Martin, Esq. Christopher Pollack, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: jmartin@awkolaw.com cpollack@awkolaw.com JP MORGAN: Bodea Seeks to File Class Cert. Bid Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bodea v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06404-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting permission to file under seal portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek permission to file under seal: (a) portions of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion and (b) Exhibits 1–42 and 47 to the declaration of Michael Dell'Angelo in support of the Motion. The reason for this request is that the Memorandum and Exhibits 1–42 and 47 to the Declaration quote, refer to, or are themselves documents or information that have been designated by Defendant J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as "Confidential." The Plaintiffs take no position on the propriety of any confidential designations and reserve the right to challenge such designations. JPMorgan is an American multinational banking institution. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DIC9l5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq. Joel M. Sweet, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com aheller@bergermontague.com rraghavan@bergermontague.com jsamuel@bergermontague.com jsweet@bergermontague.com - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. Emily A. Tu, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com emily.tu@blbglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jayant W. Tambe, Esq. Laura Washington Sawyer Cealagh P. Fitzpatrick Meredith Christian JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3939 E-mail: jtambe@jonesday.com lwsawyer@jonesday.com cfitzpatrick@jonesday.com mchristian@jonesday.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Aids and Abets Ponzi Scheme, Mendonca Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KAHAKILI MENDONCA and GLACKIN, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-05479-SVK (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from JPMorgan Chase Bank's role in a Ponzi scheme initiated by Mark Anthony Sawyer that defrauded hundreds of investors by falsely promising short-term, high-yield bridge loan returns. According to the complaint, JPMorgan Chase Bank's refusal to provide substantial assistance by filing required Suspicious Activity Reports, investigating the documented red flags, or taking account action following the investor complaint, the Ponzi scheme would have been curtailed and the Plaintiffs' losses would have been avoided or reduced. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA is a national banking association based in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: K. Kasey Corbit, Esq. Abbey Wilkins, Esq. SEREN LEGAL 495 Miller Ave., Suite 304 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 407-1872 Email: kasey@seren.legal abbey@seren.legal K.L. AUTO ENTERPRISES: Coningswood Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against K.L. Auto Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Denny Coningswood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. K.L. Auto Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Koeppel Mazda, Case No. 1:26-cv-03701 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. K.L. Auto Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Koeppel Mazda -- https://www.koeppelmazda.com/ -- offers a selection of new, used, and certified pre-owned Mazda vehicles provides.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com KALSHI INC: Reynolds Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Ian Reynolds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALSHI INC., KALSHIEX LLC, KALSHI KLEAR INC., KALSHI KLEAR LLC, KALSHI TRADING LLC, SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLP, AND SUSQUEHANNA GOVERNMENT PRODUCTS, LLLP, Case No. 3:26-cv-00336 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05238 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Kalshi Inc. -- https://kalshi.com/ -- is a prediction market platform based in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marilyn Heiken, Esq. JOHNSON JOHNSON LUCAS & MIDDLESTON, PC 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541) 484-2434 Facsimile: (541) 484-0882 Email: mheiken@justicelawyers.com KALSHI INC: Roberts Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donovan Roberts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KALSHI INC., KALSHIEX LLC, KALSHI KLEAR INC., KALSHI KLEAR LLC, KALSHI TRADING LLC, SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLP, AND SUSQUEHANNA GOVERNMENT PRODUCTS, LLLP, Case No. 3:26-cv-00336 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05246-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Kalshi Inc. -- https://kalshi.com/ -- is a prediction market platform based in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher L. Rhoads, Esq. RHOADS & RHOADS. PSC 115 E. Second Street, Suite 100 Owensboro, KY 42302-2023 Phone: (270) 683-4600 Fax: (270) 683-1653 - and - Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. DAVIS AND NORRIS LLP 2154 Highland Ave South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 930-9900 Fax: (205) 930-9989 The Defendant is represented by: Grahmn N. Morgan, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LEXINGTON 100 West Main Street, Suite 900 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 425-1036 Fax: (859) 425-1099 KILLER SHRIMP MARINA: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Killer Shrimp Marina Del Rey LP. The case is styled as Tracey Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Killer Shrimp Marina Del Rey LP, Case No. 26STCV19877 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Killer Shrimp Marina Del Rey LP offers a full gourmet seafood menu along with handcrafted cocktails, providing waterfront dining with marina views.[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 KOCH AG & ENERGY: Cake N Cow Suit Removed to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Cake N Cow Farms, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; and KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC., Case No. SV-2026-CV-000009 was removed from the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, to the United States District Court for District of Kansas on June 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01170. This action arises from an alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium fertilizers ("NPK Fertilizers") beginning at least as early as January 1, 2021, and continuing through the present. The conspiracy alleged is national in scope: According to Plaintiff, Defendants and their alleged co-conspirators control over 80% of the North American nitrogen fertilizer market and over 90% of the North American phosphate and potash markets, and the Petition defines the relevant geographic market as the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sean W. Colligan, Esq. STINSON LLP 1201 Walnut, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 691-3384 Fax: (816) 412-1079 Email: sean.colligan@stinson.com KOCH FERTILIZER: Deline Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donald F. Deline (d/b/a Deline Farms North, Deline Farms South, and Deline Farms Partnership), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., THE MOSAIC COMPANY; CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04951 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 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01190-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Koch Fertilizer -- https://kochfertilizer.com/ -- is a global leader in the production and distribution of fertilizers, supporting agriculture and industrial applications worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP - PA 1101 Market Street, Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 864-2800 Fax: (215) 864-2810 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com LANDAU'S CLEANERS: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Marco Torres, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LANDAU'S CLEANERS INC., and DAVID LANDAU, Case No. 1:26-cv-03755 (E.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 overtime premium; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid wages due to a fixed salary policy; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. By paying Plaintiff a fixed salary that did not account for overtime hours, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime premium required by law for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. There was never any understanding between Plaintiff and Defendants that the fixed salary was intended to cover any overtime hours worked. Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of paying Plaintiff and Class Members a fixed salary for all hours worked, including overtime hours, resulting in unpaid overtime premium, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a presser at Defendants' dry cleaning establishment, Landau's Premium Dry Cleaners. LANDAU'S CLEANERS INC. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, doing business as "Landau's Premium Dry Cleaners."[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 LEMONADE INC: $10.5M Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Lemonade Insurance Co. agreed to pay $10.5 million as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a data breach that affected its online insurance quote system. The Lemonade settlement benefits consumers who received a notice informing them that their personal information, such as driver's license number, was compromised in the data exposure between April 2023 and September 2024. According to the Lemonade data breach class action lawsuit, Lemonade failed to protect its online insurance quote system from a data breach that occurred between April 2023 and September 2024. Cybercriminals allegedly gained access to sensitive personal information, such as driver's license numbers, due to Lemonade's subpar cybersecurity protections. Lemonade is an insurance company that offers policies for renters, homeowners, pet owners and more. Lemonade has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $10.5 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Lemonade settlement, class members can receive up to $10,000 for documented losses that are traceable to the data exposure. Class members can also receive a cash fund payment. These payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement and the amount of the net settlement fund after deductions. All class members are eligible for three years of credit monitoring and insurance services. These services include up to $1 million in identity theft insurance coverage and three-bureau credit monitoring. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 7, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Lemonade data breach class action settlement is scheduled for Sept. 10, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 8, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification informing them that their personal information may have been compromised in a Lemonade data breach between April 2023 and Sept. 18, 2024. Potential Award Up to $10,000 in documented losses and a pro-rata cash payment. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit reports and letters from tax authorities. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/08/2026 Case Name In re: Lemonade Inc. Data Disclosure Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-04106-JHR-KHP, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 09/10/2026 Settlement Website LemonadeDataDisclosureSettlement.com Claims Administrator In re Lemonade Inc. Data Disclosure Litigation c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 447-6429 Class Counsel Melissa R. Clark AHDOOT & WOLFSON P.C. Mark B. DeSanto BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. John A. Yanchunis Ronald Podolny MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Defense Counsel Tiana A. Demas Anne Bigler COOLEY LLP [GN] LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Ortegati Inc. Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lineage Logistics, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ortegati, Inc., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lineage Logistics, LLC, Chill Build Los Angeles I, LLC, Los Palos Street Operating, LLC, Altus Power, Inc., Pearce Services, LLC, Does 1 through 20, Case No. 26STCV19901 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Lineage -- https://www.onelineage.com/ -- is the global leader of the temperature-controlled logistics industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq. TRUJILLO & WINNICK LLP 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: 310.921.5616 Fax: 310.210.9302 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com LUME DEODORANT: Cooper Sues Over Mislabeled Deodorant Products -------------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY COOPER; and JEFFREY LIGERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LUME DEODORANT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05309 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the prominent front-label in the Defendant's deodorant Products contains the word "Unscented". Consumers believe that the Products are unscented, i.e. free of fragrance. Lume's marketing, however, is false and misleading because the Products actually contain fragrance and are therefore scented, says the suit. Lume Deodorant, LLC operates as a personal care products manufacturing company. The Company offers soap, body wash, and wipes. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 Email: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com MARUTI TRANSPORTATION: Yanez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Yanez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. MARUTI TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-01334 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2026), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the Act"). The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff ("the asserted class") and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after June of 2023, (the "material time") without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff worked at least 66 hours per week, however, Plaintiff would only be paid for approximately 55 hours per week. Plaintiff was not paid for the 6 hours he worked "off the clock" performing preliminary and postliminary duties, and he was additionally shorted at least 5 hours per week of overtime work. Thus, every week Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid for all overtime hours, as required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time driver from October 6th, 2025 to April 29th, 2026, or 29 weeks. MARUTI is a transportation company providing mobility and transportation services in Florida, Texas and Louisiana.[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 MAYBOURNE BEVERLY HILLS: Lenoir Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maybourne Beverly Hills Operator LLC. The case is styled as Amie Elizabeth Lenoir, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Maybourne Beverly Hills Operator LLC, Case No. 26STCV19806 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Maybourne -- https://www.maybourne.com/en/ -- is a British luxury hotel operator.[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 MDL 3108: Urological Consultants Suit Transferred to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as UROLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF FLORIDA, VIP PHYSICIANS CONSULTING LLC, and JOHN D. MACKENNEY DPM P.A. d/b/a SPACE COAST FOOT AND ANKLE CENTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-61506, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 17, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02888 to the proceeding. The suit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: Change Healthcare, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3108. The complaint arises from the cyberattack on Change Healthcare due to inadequate data security practices. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is an American multinational for-profit company based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, providing health insurance and health care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Balmori, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6653 E-mail: daniel.balmori@hoganlovells.com MDL 3187: Dunham's Price-fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DUNHAM FAMILY FARMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01494, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the District of Kansas assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01184-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) Fertilizer Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3187. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of all indirect purchasers of nitrogen fertilizers, phosphorous fertilizers, and potassium fertilizers (collectively referred to as "NPK Fertilizers") that purchased NPK Fertilizers other than directly from a Defendant or co-conspirator in the United States from at least January 1, 2021 until the present. The Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and for treble damages under the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws of several states against Defendants and demand a trial by jury. The Mosaic Company is a publicly traded company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. The Mosaic Company was formed in October 2004 by a merger between IMC Global and Cargill's crop nutrition division, creating one of the world's largest producers of fertilizers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Black, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 1737 Monaco Parkway Denver, CO 80220 Telephone: (303) 886-6475 E-mail: dblack@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP Two CityPlace Drive, Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Evelyn Riley, Esq. Cody D. McCracken, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M St. NW, Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: evelyn@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. Zachary J. Freese, Esq. Giselle M. Webber, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com zachary.freese@zimmreed.com giselle.webber@zimmreed.com - and - Sterling Aldridge, Esq. Katherin Barrett Riley, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark A. Ford, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526−6423 E-mail: mark.ford@wilmerhale.com - and - Kristin Kate Zinsmaster, Esq. JONES DAY 90 South 7th Street, Suite 4950 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605−6210 Facsimile: (612) 605−6001 E-mail: kzinsmaster@jonesday.com MDL 3187: Union Line Price-fixing Suit Transferred to D. Kan. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as UNION LINE FARMS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and CANPOTEX LTD, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-01166-EFM-BGS, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on June 17, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01043 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS, AND POTASSIUM (NPK) FERTILIZER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 3187. This action arises from Defendants' conspiracies to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen fertilizers, phosphorus fertilizers, and potassium (potash) fertilizers -- collectively referred to as "NPK Fertilizers" -- from at least as early as January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist. The Mosaic Company is an American chemical company based in Tampa, Florida, which mines phosphate, potash, and collects urea used for fertilizer, through various international distribution networks and Mosaic Fertilizantes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 6645 South Cherry Way Centennial, CO 80121 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Theodore Salem-Mackall, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com tsalemmackall@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - and - Eric Olson, Esq. OLSON GRIMSLEY KAWANABE HINCHCLIFF & MURRAY LLC 700 17th Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 535-9151 E-mail: eolson@olsongrimsley.com MICHELMAN INC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Diontye Johnson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MICHELMAN, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00618-MRB (S.D. Ohio, June 23, 2026), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s) during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees for the time they spent engaging in these mandatory post shift turnover/relief meetings. Accordingly, Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees for all hours worked, which resulted in overtime in weeks in which they worked 40 or more hours. Defendant's policies described herein resulted in unpaid overtime for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from February 2017 to June 2021, and again from July 2022 to June 2025 as a Packaging Operator. The Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of coating and packaging products for a variety of global industries.[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 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com MOSAIC COMPANY: Samuelson Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bradley Samuelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION; and THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Case No. 2:26-cv-03880 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-00992-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Mosaic Company -- https://mosaicco.com/ -- is an American chemical company based in Tampa, Florida, which mines phosphate, potash, and collects urea used for fertilizer, through various international distribution networks and Mosaic Fertilizantes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christopher F. Jeu, Esq. Christian S. Ruano, Esq. Lauren Devens, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cjeu@cpmlegal.com ldevens@cpmlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher William Johnstone, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 858-6147 Fax: (650) 858-6100 Email: chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Wildman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Wildman, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situation v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, Case No. 26-2-16060-1 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 17, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02121. On May 18, 2026, Plaintiff served the Complaint and Summons on Motorola. The Complaint asserts two claims for relief alleging Motorola violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190.020 et seq. ("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020 et seq. ("CPA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. David Freeburg, Esq. Danielle Igbokwe, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Phone: 206.839.4800 Email: Anthony.Todaro@us.dlapiper.com David.Freeburg@us.dlapiper.com Danielle.Igbokwe@us.dlapiper.com MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Roberts Balks at Sharing of Drivers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON MICHAEL ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., and VIGILANT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-06099 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) is a class action lawsuit alleging Defendants' violations of the Automated License Plate Recognition Privacy Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California Constitutional and common law. Throughout California and the United States, drivers are tracked by a network of automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras and software -- high definition cameras combined with artificial intelligence and sophisticated communications networks. According to the complaint, Vigilant has blatantly violated limits, imposing minimal restrictions on nationwide access to California ALPR data, facilitating nationwide sharing of ALPR data on a massive scale. Vigilant could easily implement policies and design its system in compliance with the ALPR Privacy Act but Vigilant has instead encouraged its customers to illegally share information about California drivers' daily movements. In so doing, Vigilant has ignored its duties under California law, says the suit. Motorola Solutions, Inc. is an American technology company that provides safety and security products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Berger, Esq. Aaron Blumenthal, Esq. Jennifer Sun, Esq. Kate Walford, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com ab@classlawgroup.com jsun@classlawgroup.com kgw@classlawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Mike Acciavatti, Esq. Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com macciavatti@milberg.com hmlopez@milberg.com - and - Renner K. Walker, Esq. Steven M. Nathan, Esq. Gisela (Zelly) Rosa, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: rwalker@hausfeld.com snathan@hausfeld.com zrosa@hausfeld.com NATIONAL CENTER: Zipps Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Zipps, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, LTD. CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-00145-RH-HTC (N.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 ("Private Information") suffered by Defendant (the "Data Breach"). 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' Private Information from disclosure. The 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 Private Information 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 Private Information 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 was required to provide and did provide his Private Information to Defendant as a condition of receiving services from Defendant. The Defendant is a provider of standardized training, credentials, and a national registry for construction industry professionals.[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 NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO: Patch Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Guy Patch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P., a Delaware corporation; MIKE PENSINGER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV11856 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-06570. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts nine causes of action for: Failure to Pay State Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Provide Paid Sick Leave Notice; Failure to Indemnify for All Necessary Expenditures and Losses; Waiting Time Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gabrielle E. Gordon, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, 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: gabrielle.gordon@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com NELSON UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Desir Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN DESIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NELSON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02083-L (N.D. Tex., June 24, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Nelson University owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to protect their PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. Nelson University breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect students' and other individuals' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure, or by contracting with companies that failed to do so. Every year, millions of Americans have their most valuable PII stolen and sold online because of data breaches. Despite dire warnings about the severe impact of data breaches on Americans across all economic strata, companies still fail to make the necessary investments to implement adequate security measures to protect their constituents' data, says the suit. Nelson University is a private Christian university Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 5621 Arch Bridge Ct. Arlington, TX 76017 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 Email: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com NEUTRON HOLDINGS INC: Neuman Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neutron Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joshua Neuman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime, Veoride, Inc. d/b/a Veo, Case No. 718609/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Public Nuisance). Neutron Holdings, Inc., doing business under the name Lime, formerly LimeBike -- https://www.li.me/en-uy -- is an American transportation company based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Ellery Neuman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN E. NEUMAN 176-25 Union Turnpike, Suite 230 Fresh Meadows, NY 11366 NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Hosein Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The case is styled as Suzanne Hosein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Case No. Index not Assigned: Pre-RJI (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., June 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Commercial (Data Breach). NYC Health + Hospitals -- https://www.nychealthandhospitals.org/ -- is the largest municipal health care system in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori G. Feldman, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS, LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (888) 421-4529 Email: lfeldman@hechtpartners.com NEWREZ LLC: Tello Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newrez, LLC. The case is styled as Graciela Tello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newrez, LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 3:26-cv-03597-AJB-JAC (S.D. Cal., June 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Newrez LLC doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing -- https://www.shellpointmtg.com/ -- is an American residential mortgage lender and servicer offering residential mortgages through correspondent, wholesale, and consumer direct channels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com NEXT US LLC: Rose Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEXT US LLC, et al. The case is styled as Devin Rose, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beyond, Inc., Case No. 26STCV19821 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." NEXT US LLC -- https://www.next.us/en -- offers the latest fashion and children's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com NISWI LLC: Wins Arbitration Bid in "Wood" ----------------------------------------- Judge Gregory N. Stivers, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, in the case captioned Adam Wood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Niswi, LLC d/b/a LendUMo, Civil Action No. 4:25-CV-00046-GNS (W.D. Ky.), granted in part and denied as moot in part the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay, in this putative class action lawsuit, per a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 22, 2026. Plaintiff Adam Wood challenged three loan agreements entered into with defendant Niswi, LLC d/b/a LendUMo, which claimed to be an arm of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe. Wood alleged that LendUMo operated a rent-a-tribe scheme, defined as the business practices of non-tribal payday lenders hiding behind the guise of a Native American tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity. The first loan agreement, executed in June 2023, was for $1,200 with an APR of 795%. The next two loan agreements were executed in January and March 2024 for $2,300 and $1,650, respectively, each with an APR of 550%. Wood brought a class action lawsuit alleging LendUMo violated Kentucky state statutes. Each loan agreement contained an arbitration provision and a delegation clause. The court found clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability. Wood argued that the delegation provisions were unenforceable because the loan agreements prospectively waived the application of state law, depriving the arbitrator of the benefit of substantive state law. The court, adhering to its reasoning in prior related decisions, found that the loan agreements allowed for the application of federal law, including the Federal Arbitration Act, when determining arbitrability, and that Wood could raise choice-of-law objections with the arbitrator. The court held that Wood's prospective waiver argument was premature, and that the threshold question of arbitrability must be decided in the first instance by the arbitrator. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the matter pending arbitration. The alternative motion to dismiss was denied as moot. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report every 90 days and report on the outcome of the arbitration within 20 days of its conclusion. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M4syY9 from PacerMonitor.com NOMAD TRANSIT: Faison Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers --------------------------------------------------------- COURT FAISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOMAD TRANSIT LLC and VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-03289-JGB-ACCV (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including willful misclassification, failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide and/or make available meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses, failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a driver in Ontario, California since December 2025. Nomad Transit LLC is a microtransit services provider headquartered in California. Via Transportation, Inc. is a provider of ride-matching software based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com NRC ALLIANCE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NRC Alliance, LLC d/b/a 89th & Madison, Case No. 0:26-cv-02996-JMB-EMB (D. Minn., June 17, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.89thandmadison.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 apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, shorts, jeans, sweaters, jackets, swimwear, loungewear, accessories, 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 NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Casey Carroll, and all others similarly situated v. Nutrien Ltd; Nutrien Ag Solutions; CF Industries Holdings, Inc.; Koch Inc., f/k/a Koch Industries, LLC; Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, LLC; Koch Fertilizer Wever, LLC; Koch Fertilizer, LLC; Koch Agronomic Services, LLC; Yara International ASA; Yara North America, Inc.; and The Mosaic Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-03745 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-01183-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Charles Bourne, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: jcbourne@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com - and - Kyle Pozan, Esq. SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 645-7800 Fax: (312) 645-7711 Email: kpozan@smsm.com NUTRIEN LTD: Click III Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Olin Leslie Click III doing business as: Click Farms, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH, INC. f/k/a KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; THE MOSAIC CO.; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Case No. 1:26-cv-03872 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-01185-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Joseph Ellis, III, Esq. NOLAN LAW GROUP 20 N Clark St., 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 630-4000 Fax: (312) 630-4011 Email: tje@nolan-law.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE & BREWER 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Phone: (781) 391-9400 Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us NUTRIEN LTD: Fillingim Farms Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Fillingim Farms, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Nutrien Ltd; Nutrien Ag Solutions; CF Industries Holdings, Inc.; Koch Inc., f/k/a Koch Industries, LLC; Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, LLC; Koch Fertilizer Wever, LLC; Koch Fertilizer, LLC; Koch Agronomic Services, LLC; Yara International ASA; Yara North America, Inc.; and The Mosaic Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-04214 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-01188-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: Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 354-6270 Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com - and - Anthony Carter, Esq. Jon Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 699-4031 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com OAK VIEW: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Krabbe Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JACK KRABBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAK VIEW GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02802 (D. Colo., June 22, 2026) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant experienced a data breach between December 16, 2025, and January 16, 2026, when an unauthorized third party gained access to OVG's computer systems and exfiltrated certain files that contained Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive and confidential PII. The PII compromised in the data breach is precisely the type of data that is highly coveted by cybercriminals and identity thieves. Armed with the PII accessed in the data breach, data thieves can commit a variety of crimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to hold Defendant accountable and to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Defendant to implement and maintain reasonable data security practices, including encryption, multi-factor authentication, regular penetration testing, and appropriate access controls, and to provide adequate credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to Plaintiff and Class Members, among other relief. Oak View Group, LLC is Delaware Corporation headquartered in Denver, Colorado and is a hospitality and entertainment management company that employs thousands of individuals in multiples states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com OAK VIEW: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Wright Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAK VIEW GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02787 (D. Colo., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as part of its business practices, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains highly sensitive PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees, contractors, and vendors of Defendant. On January 19, 2026, Defendant discovered that unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to its inadequately protected computer system and extracted Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information stored there. An investigation into the incident determined that the unauthorized access first began on December 16, 2025. The Data Breach affected personal information the Defendant collected from contractors and vendors who performed work at its managed venues. It affected approximately 1,123 Texas residents and 335 Massachusetts residents. While Defendant discovered the Data Breach on January 19, 2026, Defendant delayed noticing affected individuals until around June 12, 2026 when Defendant began mailing notice letters to affected individuals. Defendant's delay in alerting impacted individuals of the Breach prevented Plaintiff and Class Members from taking earlier actions to protect themselves against fraud and misuse of their information, notes the complaint. As such, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered harm and continue to be at an imminent and impending risk of identity theft and fraud. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence per se, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages arising from the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Samantha Wright is an individual domiciled in Panama City Beach, Florida, who provided her sensitive personal information, including tax identification number, to Defendant as part of its business practices. Defendant Oak View Group, LLC, headquartered in Denver, CO, is a global sports, entertainment, and hospitality company. Defendant operates as a full-service venue developer, manager, and operator. Defendant employs thousands of individuals in multiple states and cities around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com OBI SEAFOODS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $380,280 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that OBI Seafoods has agreed to a $380,280 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the seafood processing company failed to protect the sensitive information of its current and former employees and vendors from an August 2024 data breach. The $380,280 OBI Seafoods class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 29, 2026 and covers all United States residents who were sent notice of the data breach involving their private information. Court documents state that the private information of approximately 19,014 people was impacted by the breach. The court-approved website for the OBI Seafoods class action settlement can be found at OBISeafoodsDataSettlement.com. OBI settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses incurred between August 16, 2024 and August 20, 2026 due to the breach. This benefit covers losses arising from identity theft or fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, postage and more. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payout. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can file a claim form to receive a pro rata alternative cash payment with no proof required. The final amount of this cash payment will depend on the number of claims filed, among other factors. In addition to monetary compensation, all class members can file a claim form to receive one year of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, dark web scanning and more. To file an OBI settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN 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 OBI claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 20, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the OBI Seafoods settlement following a hearing on September 4, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals have been resolved. The OBI Seafoods class action lawsuit alleged that the Alaskan seafood processor failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to safeguard the sensitive information of its current and former employees and vendors, and their dependents or beneficiaries, from a data breach discovered on August 16, 2024. Per court documents, private employee information that may have been exposed during the breach includes names, addresses, demographic information, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance information, government identifiers and bank account information. Additionally, private vendor information included taxpayer IDs and Social Security numbers. [GN] PILOT TRAVEL: Frazier Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as FREDDIE SAEVON FRAZIER, on behalf of himself, those similarly situated, and/or aggrieved California-based non-exempt employees, Plaintiff v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV2026-1201, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Yolo to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02248-DC-SCR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed this employment action on April 13, 2026 against the Defendants alleging these causes of action: (1) whistleblower retaliation in violation of California Labor Code; (2) retaliation for safety complaints in violation of California Labor Code; (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (4) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (5) waiting time penalties; and (6) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney's General Act of 2004. Pilot Travel Centers LLC is a North American chain of truck stops in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq. Christina H. Hayes, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: blmccarthy@littler.com chayes@littler.com PROEMPIRE LLC: Shelly Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements -------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA SHELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROEMPIRE, LLC dba VITAMATIC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01632 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers in the United States, alleging violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets a wide variety of dietary supplements under the brand name Vitamatic. According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively labels the Products by misrepresenting the dosage amount of each gummy, capsule, or tablet. Specifically, the front labels of the Vitamatic Products prominently advertise a certain dosage amount, for example, "7g fiber." The front labels also advertise the number of gummies, capsules, or tablets in the Products, for example, "60 gummies." Reasonable consumers are led to believe that each gummy, capsule, or tablet contains the advertised dosage amount, for example, 7 grams of fiber in each gummy. The truth, however, is that each gummy, capsule, or tablet does not contain the advertised dosage amount. Instead, each gummy, capsule, or tablet contains only a fraction of the advertised dosage and consumers must ingest two or three gummies, capsules, or tablets to achieve the advertised dosage. As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers grossly overpay for the Products, receiving only half or a third of the advertised value while paying the full purchase price, says the suit. Proempire, LLC dba Vitamatic, is a New Jersey-based healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com PROPARK AMERICA: Cisneros Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------ SERGIO CISNEROS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROPARK AMERICA WEST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06263 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly Valet Supervisor from approximately January 7, 2024 through October 8, 2025. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, with timely, uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods as required by California Labor Code section 512 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. Propark America West, LLC operates as a parking management company and provides valet, garage operations, and shuttle services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Gunter, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32806 Telephone: (407) 236-0946 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: MGunter@forthepeople.com PUERTAS DINING: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- VASTY SANDOVAL RIVERA and JOSSY ESTEBAN GELVEZ ALBARRACIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PUERTAS DINING GROUP LLC d/b/a PUERTAS RESTAURANT, GEORGE D. ORTIZ and TIFFANY MEDINA ORTIZ, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03809 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages, failure to pay an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. Plaintiff Rivera was employed by the Defendants as a cook and food preparer, while performing related miscellaneous duties, from April 2023 until December 2024. Puertas Dining Group LLC is a restaurant company based in Staten Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 RHINO RECOVERY: Richardson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON RICHARDSON, JESSE CARTER, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RHINO RECOVERY LLC and CODY HEMBREE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01925 (W.D. Mich., June 24, 2026) is a collective action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other individuals who perform or have performed vehicle repossession services for Defendants Rhino Recovery LLC and Cody Hembree in the State of Michigan and who were wrongfully classified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated the FLSA by misclassifying these individuals as independent contractors and failing to pay time and one-half their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs Richardson and Carter are adult individuals residing in Michigan who provided vehicle repossession services for Defendants as purported "independent contractors" from June 2023 to September 2024 and from October 2022 through February 2025, respectively. Rhino Recovery LLC is an asset recovery and repossession company whose principal business involves recovering collateral, primarily motor vehicles, on behalf of banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions and dealerships in Michigan when borrowers default on loan obligations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq. HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C. 30150 Telegraph Road, Suite 444 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Telephone: (412) 593-8106 E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net RUGGABLE LLC: Guthre Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAITLYN GUTHRE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. RUGGABLE LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02279-JFW-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its ex parte application for order to continue class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the current deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification from July 10, 2026, up to and including Dec. 4, 2026 if the Defendant's motion to bifurcate is denied, or alternatively a stay of the class certification deadline pending the resolution of individual discovery if the Defendant's motion to bifurcate is granted, so that the Plaintiff may simply have a fair opportunity to conduct discovery. In that case, the Plaintiff requests that the Plaintiff be permitted to file the Motion for Class Certification on or before 180 days after the Court's denial of the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. If the Defendant's motion to bifurcate is denied, the Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court enter an Order setting the following deadlines with respect to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: a. The Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Jan. 15, 2027. b. The Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Jan. 29, 2027. d. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be set for Feb. 15, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiff is entitled to a meaningful and unobstructed opportunity to conduct the discovery necessary to satisfy its burden under Rule 23. The Defendant's motion to bifurcate is a deliberate procedural maneuver designed to foreclose that opportunity—stripping the Plaintiff of the class discovery it needs while simultaneously holding Plaintiff to a certification deadline that was set without any account for that obstruction. On March 4, 2026, the Plaintiff filed the class action complaint ("CAC") against the Defendant Ruggable LLC. The Defendant manufactures and distributes rugs, runners, and doormats. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzGDbz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Artin Betpera, Esq. Richard Liparit Hovsepyan, Esq. BUCHALTER LAW FIRM LLP 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Telephone: (949) 760-1121 Facsimile: (949) 720-0182 E-mail: abetpera@buchalter.com rhovsepyan@buchalter.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Carr et al. Sue Over Inadequate Jail Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ LACARLA CARR, ALEXCIS HERRERA, THEA HOPKINS, SILVIA MONTOYA, DAMENA PAGE, GIOVANNA RAMIREZ-HERNANDEZ, MARILYN SAHAGUN-LOPEZ, KIMBERLY BOYD, and KATELYN WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO, in his individual capacity; JENNIFER COLLINS, Chief of Custody for the San Francisco Sheriff's Office, in her individual capacity; LISA PRATT, M.D., in her individual capacity as the former Director of Jail Health Services, and ROLAND PICKENS, Chief Administrator for the San Francisco Health Network, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05508 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution. The Plaintiffs bring this civil rights class action lawsuit to remedy the unconstitutional conditions at San Francisco's County Jail 2 (CJ2), located at 425 7th Street, San Francisco; and to remedy the disparity in treatment and options female inmates face as compared to male inmates incarcerated in CJ2. The Plaintiff maintains that the CJ2 lacks both an outdoor yard and sufficient exercise space. The County of San Francisco is a public entity that oversees the County of San Francisco Sheriff's Office, a law enforcement agency within the City and County of San Francisco, and is charged with operating all City and County of San Francisco jails. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yolanda Huang, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG P.O. Box 5475 Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone/Facsimile: (510) 329-2140 E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com SISTERS OF CHARITY: Jones Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as FLETCHER JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff v. SISTERS OF CHARITY LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and INTERMOUNTAN HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2025CV30029, was removed from the District Court, Broomfield County, Colorado to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on June 18, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02747 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's amended complaint asserts claims under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, Colorado's Civil Theft Statute, and the Denver Civil Wage Theft Ordinance for failure to pay wages due, including overtime (specifically that Defendant failed to include holiday premium pay in the regular rate for overtime), failure to provide meal and rest breaks in accordance with Colorado law, failure to pay minimum wage, and civil theft. Sisters of Charity Leavenworth Health System, Inc. is a Catholic non-profit healthcare organization founded in 1864, based in Broomfield, Colorado.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marielle A. Moore, Esq. Rebecca M. Lindell, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2000 South Colorado Boulevard Tower Three, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 764-6800 Facsimile: (303) 831-9246 E-mail: marielle.moore@ogletree.com rebecca.lindell@ogletree.com - and - Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Gateway Tower West 15 West South Temple, Suite 950 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 658-6085 E-mail: jason.plowman@ogletree.com STONEBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Toledo Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SUMMER TOLEDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STONEBRIDGE HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026CV031853, was removed from the District Court, Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on June 18, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02751 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Toledo filed this putative class action asserting claims under Colorado wage-and-hour law and Colorado civil-theft law on behalf of herself and a proposed class of hourly paid employees. Stonebridge Hospitality Associates, LLC is a hospitality management company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Courtney M. Witten, Esq. Nathan A. Schacht, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: cwitten@bakerlaw.com nschacht@bakerlaw.com SWEATPALS INC: De Armas Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SweatPals Inc. The case is styled as Monica De Armas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SweatPals Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01663 (W.D. Tex., June 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SweatPals Inc. -- https://sweatpals.com/ -- is a platform to create, manage, and monetize fitness and wellness events with tools for registration, waivers, questionnaires, and email collection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 Ne 1st Ave Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com SYNGENTA CROP: Frierson Files PI Suit Over Paraquat Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHNATHAN FRIERSON, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of PATRICIA FRIERSON, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants, Case No. N26C-06-263 PQT (Del. Ch., June 23, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff alleging that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with their use. Paraquat is a synthetic chemical compound that, since the mid‐1960s, has been developed, registered, manufactured, distributed, sold for use, and used as an active ingredient in herbicide products. According to the complaint, the Decedent used Defendants' ICI‐CHEVRON Paraquat products and/or ICI SYNGENTA Paraquat products. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. As a result of Decedent's many years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to Defendants' Paraquat products, Decedent contracted Parkinson's disease which ultimately led to and/or contributed to her death, the complaint alleges. The Plaintiff brings this case to recover from Defendants, under the following theories of liability: compensation for injuries and damages caused by the exposure of Decedent to Paraquat from Defendants' Paraquat products, plus costs of suit; strict product liability -- design defect; strict product liability -- failure to warn; negligence; breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability; fraudulent misrepresentation; loss of consortium; survival action; and wrongful death. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC provides crop protection chemical products and agricultural services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 E-mail: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com TAMKO BUILDING: Ressler Files Mass Tort Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tamko Building Products, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as AARON RESSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2026-011484-CA-01 (Fla. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., June 5, 2026). The case type is stated as mass tort. Tamko Building Products, LLC is a manufacturer of building products, headquartered in Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve I. Silverman, Esq. KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN & LEVINE, PL 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379-9000 TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Gummies ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Target Corp. Why: The plaintiffs claim Target falsely advertises the dosage amount of its Up&Up ashwagandha gummies. Where: The Target class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Target deceptively advertises the dosage amount of its Up&Up ashwagandha gummies. Plaintiffs Janice Williams and Michael Smith filed the class action complaint against Target on April 21 in California federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. Williams and Smith claim that Target's Up&Up ashwagandha gummies are labeled as to seemingly contain 300 mg of ashwagandha per gummy, but in reality, consumers must ingest two gummies to achieve the advertised dosage. As a result, consumers receive only half of the perceived advertised value while paying the full purchase price, the Target class action lawsuit alleges. "Defendant's advertising misleads reasonable consumers into believing that each gummy contains the advertised dosage," the lawsuit says. "However, contrary to the labeling, each unit only contains a fraction of the advertised dosage. Consequently, reasonable consumers believe that they are receiving twice the amount of ashwagandha than what they are actually receiving." Target ashwagandha gummies sold at premium price, lawsuit claims Williams and Smith argue that Target's misleading labeling caused them to pay a premium for the product, as they believed they were receiving 300 mg of ashwagandha per gummy. The plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less for it, had they known the truth about the dosage. The Target class action lawsuit alleges violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, as well as breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation or fraud and unjust enrichment. Williams and Smith are demanding a jury trial and requesting an order compelling Target to cease marketing the product using misleading tactics, destroy all deceptive materials and conduct a corrective advertising campaign. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory, actual and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. In a similar case, a federal judge certified a 2022 class action lawsuit against Bayer, which alleges consumers were misled into believing they only needed to take a single One A Day vitamin gummy to get the full advertised nutritional benefits. The plaintiffs are represented by Lilach H. Klein and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal P.C. The Target class action lawsuit is Williams, et al. v. Target Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-02534-H-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] TECHNIP ENERGIES: Abila Sues for Discrimination, Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO M. ABILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECHNIP ENERGIES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04964 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act for unlawful employment discrimination and unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff, a 70-year-old Hispanic engineering design professional, was abruptly discharged on February 19, 2026, after more than two and one-half years of service, and replaced by a substantially younger, white, non-Hispanic employee. He brings claims for racial discrimination and national origin discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act and for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. The Plaintiff also brings a claim, individually and as a collective action under FLSA to recover unpaid overtime compensation. The Defendant maintained a common pay practice of recording overtime hours under an earnings code but paying those hours at the employee's straight-time regular rate, rather than at one and one-half times the regular rate as the FLSA requires. Technip Energies USA, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides project management, engineering, conceptual design, procurement, process technologies, and construction services for the energy industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Estes, Esq. THE ESTES LAW FIRM, P.C. 716 S. Union St. Richmond, TX 77469 Telephone: (281) 238-5400 Facsimile: (281) 238-9964 E-mail: joshuaestes@estespc.net TOP GOLF: Robinson Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as TREY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP GOLF USA INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-03738-8, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02200 to the proceeding. The complaint brings claims on behalf of the putative class: All current and former hourly-paid employees who worked for any one or more of the Defendants in any location in Washington State at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of the Court's order certifying the Class. On behalf of himself and the putative class members, the Plaintiff alleges a variety of wage and hour violations, including that Top Golf (1) failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal and rest breaks, (2) required off-the-clock work, and (3) failed to pay compliant overtime. Top Golf USA Inc. operates as an amusement and recreation company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Lauren S. Titchbourne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 E-mail: ashley.paynter@ogletree.com lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com TPUSA INC: Gagnon Files FLSA Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TPUSA, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Gagnon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. TPUSA, Inc. doing business as: Teleperformance USA, Case No. 1:26-cv-12831-RGS (D. Mass., June 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. TPUSA, Inc. doing business as: Teleperformance USA -- https://www.tp.com/en-us/ -- provides telecommunication services and offers outsourced customer relationship management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brook S. Lane, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South St., Ste 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 607-3260 Email: brook@fairworklaw.com TRANS UNION: Goyette Balks at Inaccurate Consumer Report Info ------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS GOYETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01841 (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2026) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that TransUnion, LLC has negligently and recklessly disseminated false and damaging information regarding the Plaintiff's and the Class members' credit, and woefully failed to maintain reasonable procedures regarding the accuracy of its consumer reports. According to the complaint, the Defendant has been wrongfully misreporting accounts on Plaintiff Dennis Goyette's consumer report that had been properly discharged in his joint bankruptcy with his wife. Particularly egregious here is that TransUnion is reporting the same account accurately on Plaintiff's wife's consumer report. The fact that the same account, included in the same bankruptcy, is being reported two different ways by TransUnion plainly elicits that it does not have the adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that it prevents such logically inconsistent and inaccurate information from being reported on consumers' reports, says the suit. Trans Union, LLC is one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the United States and is engaged in the business of assembling and disseminating credit reports concerning hundreds of millions of consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Kanee, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1508 SW 23rd Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 Telephone: (848) 346-4358 E-mail: joseph@marcuszelman.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Buser Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Paul Buser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TriZetto Provider Solutions LLC, Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-03156 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-00989-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TriZetto Provider Solutions -- https://www.trizettoprovider.com/ -- is a healthcare technology company that specializes in revenue cycle management software and services for healthcare providers.[BN] The 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 TRUE FINANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ware Suit Due May 11, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH WARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUE FINANCE LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-05106-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered a minute order setting pretrial class certification briefing schedule as follows: Deadline Due Date Joinder of parties: Aug. 10, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert designation: May 11, 2027 Class certification motion: May 11, 2027 The Defendant's expert rebuttal: July 9, 2027 Opposition to class certification July 9, 2027 motion: Reply to class certification motion: Aug. 9, 2027 True Finance provides a money app for borrowing, earning, and saving. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wi0AJw at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Faces Farrelly Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK FARRELLY and SABERDEE JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02175 (W.D. Wash., June 23, 2026) is a proposed wage-and-hour class action brought by the Plaintiff under the Washington Industrial Welfare Act and the Washington Minimum Wage Act seeking injunctive relief and damages for Defendants' failure to provide and pay for legally required meal and rest breaks; failure to pay all owed minimum wages, and failure to pay all owed overtime wages. Plaintiff Farrelly worked for Defendants as a driver helper and/or a similar job title/position from approximately 2023 through January 2026. During those years, Plaintiff Farrelly worked on a seasonal basis from approximately October through January, most recently in or around January 2026. United Parcel Service, Inc. is an Ohio corporation, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, authorized to and doing business in the State of Washington. The Company owns, operates, manages, and staffs a global transportation and logistics network, employing numerous workers to provide commercial shipping, heavy air freight, and package delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com UNITED STATES: Court Upholds Public Right to Hear Removals ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Fr. Fabian Arias, Stephen Kelly, Laura McCallum, Debbie Nathan, and Dr. Zoey Phillips, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David J. Venturella, in his official capacity as the senior official performing the duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Justice; Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General; General Services Administration; and Edward Forst, in his official capacity as Administrator of General Services, Defendants, Civil Action No. 26-cv-2130 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, in an Opinion and Order filed June 22, 2026. The case concerned public access, speech, association, retaliation, and alleged intimidation in and around two immigration courts in Lower Manhattan: the New York Federal Plaza Immigration Court at 26 Federal Plaza and the New York Broadway Immigration Court at 290 Broadway. The Plaintiff regularly attended, or sought to attend, immigration court proceedings as clergy, court observers, journalists, attorneys, mental-health professionals, volunteers, and accompaniers. The Plaintiff alleged that, beginning in or around June 2025, conditions in the New York City immigration courts changed dramatically. According to the Plaintiff, courtroom doors were locked during proceedings that were presumptively open to the public; members of the public were told that observers were not permitted; observers and accompaniers were barred from waiting rooms and hallways; quiet communications with respondents were prohibited; written materials were treated as forbidden solicitation; and the regular presence of ICE or other federal law-enforcement officers in court-adjacent spaces deterred observation, accompaniment, reporting, and court participation. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's papers referenced only a handful of specific incidents that reflected no discernible pattern, that immigration courts and the federal buildings in which they sat were nonpublic fora, and that the relevant federal agencies imposed reasonable restrictions directed at public safety and the orderly operation of immigration courts. Upon examination of Article III standing, the Court found that the claims against ICE and Defendant Venturella were dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. The Court found that the complaint did not contain a specific allegation that an identified ICE officer prohibited a named plaintiff from observing a hearing, speaking with a respondent, distributing information, or remaining in a public area outside the course of an arrest, detention, transport, or other enforcement operation. The Court also found that the Plaintiff's alleged fear or intimidation arising from the visible presence of ICE officers and from witnessing arrest operations did not, without additional facts, establish a threatened injury that could be redressed by an injunction directed at ICE. On the question of mootness, the Court found that the Defendant's remedial communications did not moot the surviving claims. The Court noted that the communications were reminders of governing access rules and were not formal regulations, binding rescissions of informal policy, consent decrees, or enforceable commitments that resolved the alleged multi-agency problem. On the First Amendment access claim, the Court applied the experience-and-logic test and found that ordinary, non-closed immigration court hearings carried a qualified First Amendment right of public access. The Court found that removal hearings were trial-type adjudications; that the governing regulations made them presumptively open; and that public observation promoted fairness, regularity, accountability, and public confidence. Accordingly, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amendment access claim against the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the General Services Administration. On the speech and association claims, the Court found that the immigration courtrooms, EOIR-controlled waiting areas, and general interior common areas of 26 Federal Plaza and 290 Broadway were nonpublic fora for purposes of independent expressive activity. The Court further found that the Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the Defendant categorically or selectively prohibited quiet, consensual, noncommercial communication and accompaniment in waiting areas otherwise open to persons conducting immigration-court business. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was therefore denied on the speech and association claims. On the retaliation claim, the Court found that the Plaintiff adequately alleged that protected court-related activity prompted the challenged restrictions. The Court found that the complaint contained sufficient factual allegations of causation, including incidents linking the adverse response directly and immediately to the protected activity that preceded it. The motion to dismiss the retaliation claim was denied as to Father Arias, Kelly, McCallum, and Phillips. On the preliminary injunction, the Court found that the Plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on two First Amendment theories: access to ordinary, non-closed immigration court hearings, and protection against categorical restrictions on quiet, consensual communication and accompaniment in EOIR-controlled public waiting areas. The Court also found that the loss of First Amendment freedoms constituted irreparable injury. The preliminary injunction was therefore granted in part, restraining the categorical or otherwise unjustified exclusion of observers from ordinary, non-closed immigration court hearings at 26 Federal Plaza and 290 Broadway; building-entry or access-control practices that prevent observers from reaching such hearings without a lawful justification; and categorical or unreasonable restrictions on quiet, consensual, noncommercial communication and accompaniment in EOIR-controlled public waiting areas. The motion was denied as to ICE and Venturella. On class certification, the Court found the motion premature and denied it without prejudice. The Court found that the proposed class was exceptionally broad, did not permit determination of who belonged to the class with sufficient precision, and that the record was particularly inadequate as to numerosity. The Court also found that the proposed appointment of Kelly as both class representative and class counsel presented an additional problem under Rule 23. The Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint by July 22, 2026, to cure the standing deficiencies concerning ICE and Venturella and the pleading deficiencies A copy of the Court's decisions is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zi1HtV from PacerMonitor.com UNITED STATES: Morris Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The United States of America, et al. The case is styled as Breanna Sherrell Morris, B.T.M., through his birth mother only, on behalf of herself and her minor son/child similarly situated v. The United States of America, The United States Department of Homeland Security, The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Case No. 2:26-cv-02738-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., June 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The United States of America (USA) -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- also known as the United States is a country primarily located in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. VALLEY STRONG: Bradford Sues Over Denial of Credit Application -------------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY STRONG CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04994 (S.D. Tex., June 24, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Defendant's violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In May 2026, the Plaintiff applied for a home equity line of credit from Defendant. On May 4, he received an email from Defendant denying his credit application. The email contained a letter that provided the reasons for the credit denial. The adverse action letter stated, in pertinent part, that: "Credit Application Incomplete." The adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial, and failed to specify why the application was incomplete, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff was not able to correct the alleged deficiency that led to the credit denial. The Plaintiff was forced to file this action to obtain information he is entitled to under the ECOA. Valley Strong Credit Union is a credit union that provides loans and other credit opportunities to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com VEGO INNOVATIONS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vego Innovations, Inc. d/b/a Vego Garden Store, Case No. 0:26-cv-03076 (D. Minn., June 24, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.vegogarden.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 gardening supplies for sale including, but not limited to, raised garden beds, planters, plant supports, watering, greenhouses, indoor gardening supplies, outdoor living furniture, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com VELOPOWER INC: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------ MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VELOPOWER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05300 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.velotricbike.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 7, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Velotric Step-Thru Electric Bike from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Velopower, Inc. operates the website that sells electric bikes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WILD OAK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILD OAK BOUTIQUE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05145 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.wildoakboutique.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 6, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Beverly Risen Shorts from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Wild Oak Boutique LLC operates the website that offers clothing, accessories, and footwear products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Botto Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ NANCY LOPEZ BOTTO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC D/B/A WEST ELM, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06847 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2026) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant allegedly engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Further, to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc d/b/a West Elm, is a retailer that sells high-end furnishings, accessories, and kitchenware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com WINGMEN V LLC: Sexton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wingmen V, LLC. The case is styled as Charles Sexton, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Wingmen V, LLC a/k/a Buffalo Wild Wings, Case No. 26STCV19835 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Wingmen V, LLC also known as Buffalo Wild Wings -- https://www.buffalowildwings.com/ -- is an American casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise specializing in chicken wings.[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 YVES SAINT LAURENT: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-03074 (D. Minn., June 24, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.ysl.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 luxury apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, skirts, denim, knitwear, sweaters, jackets, outerwear, jewelry, handbags, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***