260703.mbx

260703.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 3, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 132 Headlines AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Extension of Stay Deadlines Sought AMERITAS LIFE: Wightman PPO Act Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Arnwine Balks at Unsecured Personal Info AVANGRID MANAGEMENT: Baker Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty BAYAMON MEDICAL: Dismissal of Santos Data Breach Suit Affirmed BIOGEN INC: $18.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 29 BLACK ROCK: Aiello Files Suit Over Share Price Drop BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Attys' Fee Award in Gelis Vacated on Appeal C&S WHOLESALE: Flores Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Charleston Says CHIRON FINANCIAL: Hirner-Couderc et al. Sue For Labor Law Breaches CHRIS PIAETE: Talamante Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 12 CHRISTIAN DIOR: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CHUBBIES INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CLOUDFLARE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Recapitalization Proposal COMPASS INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Transaction Fees CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Corzo Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: West Sues Over Deceptive Dog Food Labels COVE DRINKS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Falsely Advertised Sodas DRISCOLL'S INC: Berlinger Sues Over Mislabeled Strawberries DUBLIN FARMS: Suit Seeks Migrant Agricultural Workers' Proper Wages ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Equal Website Access for the Blind Sought FIRST FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Armstrong Says FIRST SOLAR: Day Suit Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop GATEWAY CHURCH: Wins Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint GOOGLE LLC: Gomez Wrongful Termination Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. GREATER ROCHESTER: Agrees to $2.15MM Data Breach Suit Settlement HARBOR DISTRIBUTING: Sanctions for AI Filing in Quinteros Affirmed HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Young Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. HOMETAP EQUITY: Crawford Sues Over Deceptive Mortgage Loan Product HY-VEE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages IMS US LLC: Faces Hedges Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JAMES JAMES: Delanay Seeks to Certify Class of H-Block Prisoners JEROME HARRIS: Court OK's Proposed Form of Notice JP MORGAN: Bodea Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification JP MORGAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response KELLER WILLIAMS: Discovery Scheduling Order Entered in Garvey Suit KROGER CO: Wins Preliminary Nod for $17MM Deal in "Kirkbride" LASER EYE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mack Suit Due April 16, 2027 LIVE NATION: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Due July 30 LUFAX HOLDING: Court Appoints Zhou, Tchind as Co-Lead Plaintiffs MACYS.COM LLC: Hayward Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. MARATHON REFINING: Class Settlement in Wood Suit Gets Final Nod MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Dismissed w/o Prejudice in Abundez Suit MARLBORO-CHESTERFIELD PATHOLOGY: Breach Suit Deal Gets Prelim OK MARUTI TRANSPORTATION: Initial Case Order Entered in Yanez Suit MASSACHUSETTS: Bid for Class Certification in Green Due July 10 MDL 3035: Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice in Retirement Suit OK'd META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Docs Under Seal MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE: Pitts Files Suit in N.D. Illinois MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Bid for Magistrate Judge Recusal Tossed MXR IMAGING INC: Bonds Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NATERA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Genetic Testing Claims NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Campbell Sues Over Eligibility Restrictions NEW DIRECTION: Seeks to Compel Supplemental Discovery Responses NEWPORT GROUP: Ewing Proposed Form of Notice OK'd NEWPORT GROUP: Jackson Proposed Form of Notice OK'd NEWPORT GROUP: Russ Proposed Form of Notice OK'd NEWPORT GROUP: Wade Proposed Form of Notice OK'd NUTRIEN LTD: Flaten Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: IIHAB Partnership Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: Jewett Farms Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: Koon Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: Miller Suit Transferred to D. Kansas OKANOGAN BEHAVIORAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action OKLAHOMA: Appeals Declaratory/Injunctive Relief Order to 10th Cir. OKLAHOMA: Appeals Injunctive Relief Order in Feltz Civil Suit OLD COPPER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Krantz Suit Due Dec. 24, 2027 OPUS HOME LOANS: Waller Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ORACLE CORP: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Anderson Says ORACLE CORPORATION: C. A. Files Suit in W.D. Texas PARTS TOWN: Rivers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation PEYTON PALAIO: Court Narrows Claims in Palaio FAC PHILLIPS 66: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 26, 2027 PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS: Frazier Suit Removed to C.D. California POVERELLO CENTER: McKenzie's Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed PREFERRED BANK: Dawkins Sues Over Data Privacy Violations REDDIT INC: Class Cert Bid in Babbini Suit Due July 13, 2027 RENAISSANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Ticket Fees' Suit for $1.9MM RICOH USA: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order in MTP Suit RIVER HEIGHTS: Kidd Suit Seeks to Stay Class Cert Deadlines ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial RUGGABLE LLC: Class Cert Deadline Continued to Dec. 4 RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Hearing Sought in Preciado Lawsuit RYAN MORAN: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification SAINT PETER'S: Pollinger Sues Over Communications Interception SAN DIEGO CONVENTION: Conditional Status of Collective Partly OK'd SANDISK SSDS: Plaintiffs to File Renewed Bid for Class Cert SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Summary Judgment Granted on Appeal in Guilbeau SECURITAS SECURITY: Must Oppose Ulloa Class Cert Bid by July 7 SENTURE LLC: Odum Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SERVICEAIDE INC: Agrees to $1.8MM Data Breach Class Settlement SINCERE HOME CARE: Weyek Sues Failure to Pay Wages for Overtime SOUND DIMENSION: Gutierrez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime SUMIRIKO OHIO: Adams Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TAURO PIZZA CORP: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property TERRAN ORBITAL: Scottini Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement TESLA: Arbitration Denial in Doss Wage-&-Hour Suit Partly Reversed TICKETMASTER LLC: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in Holmes Due July 30 TORRID LLC: Class Certification Bid in Perez Due June 18, 2027 TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Loses Bid for Class Certification TYSON FOODS: Mohamed Sues Over Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Medicare's Reimbursement Rule UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Driver's Biometrics Suit Gets Class Status VENEZUELA: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition by July 24 VENTURA COUNTY, CA: Standing Order Entered in Santa Paula Suit WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Harriot Seeks Attys' Fees & Costs Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Has $2.17BB Reserves at 2026 Q1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nash's Ch. 11 Stay Lifted to Resolve Coverage FIVE BELOW: Grazioli Seeks Refund of Tariff Surcharges ********* AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Extension of Stay Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY MIDDLETON and GEORGE A. LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of the AMENTUM 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN and DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. AMENTUM GOVERNMENT SERVICES PARENT HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of deadlines associated with the Defendants' motion to stay as follows: a one-week extension of Plaintiffs' response making it due June 29, 2026; and a three-day extension of the Defendants' reply making it due July 9, 2026. While counsel for the Plaintiffs have been working on the response brief, the press of deadlines associated with other matters have delayed their progress and they seek a short one-week extension of time to complete the response brief, making the response due June 29, 2026. In light of the intervening July 4, 2026 holiday, the Defendants seek a short three-day extension of their reply deadline until July 9, 2026. Amentum provides technical and engineering services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kupMVb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Boyd A. Byers, Esq. Teresa Shulda, Esq. Samuel J. Walenz, Esq. Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9716 Facsimile: (316) 771-6011 E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com tshulda@foulston.com swalenz@foulston.com snehrbass@foulston.com The Defendants are represented by: Elaine Drodge Koch, Esq. Sarah R. Holdmeyer, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 374-3235 Facsimile: (816) 374-3300 E-mail: elaine.koch@bclplaw.com sarah.holdmeyer@bclplaw.com - and - Cardelle B. Spangler, Esq. Aviva Grumet-Morris, Esq. Tiana Pequette, Esq. Heather L. Kriz, Esq. WINSTON TAYLOR LLP 300 N. LaSalle Drive Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: cardelle.spangler@winstontaylor.com aviva.grumetmorris@winstontaylor.com tiana.pequette@winstontaylor.com heather.kriz@winstontaylor.com AMERITAS LIFE: Wightman PPO Act Summary Judgment Reversed on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK WIGHTMAN, Doctor of Dental Surgery; COURTNEY WIGHTMAN, Doctor of Dental Surgery; WIGHTMAN FAMILY DENTAL, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-30775 (5th Cir.), Judge James E. Graves, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ameritas. Mark and Courtney Wightman own a small dental clinic, Wightman Family Dental. They entered into an agreement with DenteMax, a preferred provider organization (PPO), that allowed their services to be offered at discounted rates to network subscribers in exchange for access to a larger patient pool. In 2012, Ameritas separately contracted with DenteMax to access its provider network and reimburse participating providers, including the Wightmans, at those discounted rates, allowing Ameritas to pass those rates on to its customers. The Wightmans were not aware of the agreement between Ameritas and DenteMax. When patients used Ameritas benefit cards, the Wightmans expected reimbursement at their standard rates, as the cards did not disclose any discount arrangement. Instead, they were reimbursed at reduced PPO rates. After questioning the payments, the Wightmans contacted Ameritas, which then informed them of its agreement with DenteMax. The Wightmans sued Ameritas and DenteMax for breach of contract and violations of Louisiana's PPO Act. The district court partially dismissed their claims, and the Wightmans later amended their pleadings, turning the case into a putative class action. The court again dismissed the statutory and unjust enrichment claims as prescribed under Louisiana law, though it noted the claims would have been viable but for prescription. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit certified to the Louisiana Supreme Court the question of whether PPO Act claims are delictual or contractual for prescriptive purposes. The Louisiana Supreme Court held they are contractual, making the claims timely. Based on that ruling, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal as to Ameritas, while DenteMax separately settled with the Wightmans. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ameritas. It held that dental services do not qualify as "healthcare services" under the Louisiana PPO Act, meaning the Wightmans' statutory claims failed. The court also found that the Wightmans had abandoned their remaining non-PPO Act claims during the first appeal. It further denied their request to amend the complaint and denied a motion for reconsideration. The Wightmans appealed. The district court granted summary judgment to Ameritas on the Wightmans' PPO Act claims after concluding that dental services are not "healthcare" under Louisiana law. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. It held that dental services qualify as healthcare under the PPO Act, relying on the statute's broad language and the ordinary meaning of healthcare, which includes dentistry. The court also found that interpreting the PPO Act this way does not conflict with or duplicate the Louisiana Network Adequacy Act, since the two statutes regulate different conduct. The PPO Act governs disclosures on benefit cards at the point of service, while the NLA addresses separate contracting requirements. Because dental services fall within the scope of the PPO Act, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The parties also raised additional arguments regarding whether summary judgment could be affirmed on alternative grounds. However, the Fifth Circuit noted that the district court's ruling focused primarily on whether the Wightmans qualified as providers under the PPO Act and did not fully address other issues. As a general rule, the Fifth Circuit does not consider issues not first addressed by the district court. It also observed that the district court briefly concluded the Wightmans were judicially estopped from arguing that the contract between DenteMax and Ameritas created a PPO, but it did so without applying a clear legal standard and relied on only a single case. The district court also abused its discretion in applying judicial estoppel without sufficient analysis, the Fifth Circuit held. The court failed to articulate the governing legal standard and did not make findings on the required elements, offering only limited and conclusory reasoning. Although it appeared to view the Wightmans' positions as inconsistent, it did not fully evaluate the doctrine’s requirements. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that discretionary decisions must be grounded in sound legal principles and adequately explained. It expressed no view on whether judicial estoppel should apply, but remanded for further consideration with a proper analysis. The district court declined to consider the Wightmans' non-PPO Act claims, including unjust enrichment, concluding they had been abandoned on appeal because they were only briefly mentioned in the briefing. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. It held that the district court lacked authority to determine whether issues were forfeited on appeal and also violated the mandate rule, which requires a lower court to follow the appellate court's instructions without revisiting issues outside that mandate. Because the Fifth Circuit had not resolved those claims or directed their dismissal, the district court erred in treating them as abandoned. It therefore reversed the grant of summary judgment on the non-PPO Act claims and remanded for further consideration. Finally, the Wightmans challenged the district court's denial of their motion for leave to amend the complaint, which the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion. Given the late stage of the litigation and the case’s procedural history, the court found no abuse of discretion in that ruling. For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/QTEHg90sJ ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Arnwine Balks at Unsecured Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROSALIND ARNWINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03501-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2026) is a class action against Defendant AssuranceAmerica for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including names, contact information, Social Security numbers, tax ID information, insurance information, driver or vehicle information, and driver's license numbers. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their private information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, AssuranceAmerica has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite AssuranceAmerica's duty to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their private information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized third party successfully targeted an employee and gained access to the company's IT systems on March 16, 2026. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment arising from the data breach. AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency is an insurance company that offers personal auto, commercial auto, and renters insurance, primarily for high-risk drivers or those who have trouble getting coverage from standard carriers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com AVANGRID MANAGEMENT: Baker Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------ DORA BAKER, individually, on behalf of the Avangrid 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Avangrid 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. AVANGRID MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC and the AVANGRID & SUBSIDIARIES JOINT PLAN AD MINISTRATION AND FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE; Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01002 (D. Conn., June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act with regards to the Plan. According to the complaint, the Plan fiduciaries fell well short of the strict fiduciary duties by consistently retaining the T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Trust (hereafter the "TRP Growth Stock Fund") for years, despite this fund having proven that it could not beat its own chosen index benchmark and thus violated a basic investment principle of providing no expectation of additional returns in exchange for increased risk. Similarly, the TRP Growth Stock Fund glaringly underperformed its peers under nearly all Modern Portfolio Theory investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. If Defendants had complied with their fiduciary duties to monitor their investments, this unsuitable and underperforming investment would have been removed. The Defendants' failure to conduct a reasonably prudent process to investigate and monitor investment options within the Plan and remove this unsuitable and underperforming investment reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by tens of millions of dollars. As a result of this imprudent activity, the Plaintiff and the other Plan participants suffered around $45 million and $124 million in damages over the Class Period, June 22, 2020, through the date of judgment, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a current participant in the Plan and has been a participant during the entire Class Period. Avangrid Management Company is the sponsor of the Plan and administers the Plan in Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com BAYAMON MEDICAL: Dismissal of Santos Data Breach Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of BETZAIDA SANTOS-PAGÁN, Plaintiff, Appellant, MINERVA M. HERNÁNDEZ-UMPIERRE, Plaintiff, v. BAYAMON MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Appellee, DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants, Case No. 24-2018 (1st Cir.), holding that Santos lacked Article III standing because she failed to plausibly allege that her claimed injury was fairly traceable to the alleged data breach. Plaintiff-Appellant Santos filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against Bayamón Medical Center (BMC), alleging claims arising from a data breach that exposed the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of approximately 522,493 patients, including herself. The district court dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing, finding that Santos failed to plausibly allege that her alleged injury was traceable to BMC's data breach. BMC, a hospital in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, maintains patient records containing PII and PHI, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and medical diagnoses. In May 2019, BMC discovered it had been the target of a ransomware attack that encrypted files on its systems and temporarily rendered them unusable, with hackers demanding payment to restore access. In July 2019, BMC notified patients of the breach, stating that while patient PII and PHI had been encrypted, there was no indication the data had been accessed or misused by unauthorized parties. Santos, a former patient, received this notice. On May 22, 2020, Santos and Minerva Hernández Umpierre, another former BMC patient filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico under the Class Action Fairness Act, , 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), asserting Puerto Rico law claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. They alleged that BMC's failure to safeguard patient data resulted in a ransomware breach exposing PII, placing them and the putative class at an ongoing risk of identity theft, requiring mitigation efforts, causing out-of-pocket expenses such as credit monitoring services, and diminishing the value of their personal information. On August 31, 2023, BMC moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and failed to establish jurisdiction under CAFA. BMC contended that the complaint did not plausibly allege an injury in fact because it offered no factual basis showing that the Plaintiffs had suffered or were likely to suffer identity theft or fraud as a result of the data breach, and that speculative allegations of future risk were insufficient to establish standing. Three weeks later, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC), seeking to add federal question jurisdiction by alleging violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701 et seq., and to include additional facts regarding harms suffered by co-plaintiff Umpierre, including alleged bank fraud, changes to her phone number and mobile payment account, and inaccuracies in her credit report. No new factual allegations were added for Santos. The district court granted leave to amend, and the FAC was filed on September 28, 2023. On November 27, 2023, BMC moved to dismiss Umpierre's claims under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing she lacked standing because she became a patient after the data breach occurred. The district court agreed and dismissed her claims without prejudice. With Santos as the remaining named plaintiff, BMC moved for judgment on the pleadings on all claims in the first amended complaint. BMC argued that Santos lacked Article III standing because she failed to plausibly allege an injury in fact, noting that she did not claim to have suffered identity theft or fraud and that her allegations of a future risk of such harm were purely speculative. On April 19, 2024, nearly five years after the data breach and four years after filing suit, Santos moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, seeking to add newly discovered allegations of harm. The district court granted the motion. In the proposed second amended complaint (SAC), Santos alleged that after receiving BMC’s breach notice, she discovered an unauthorized cellphone account opened in her name, which required her to spend time and approximately $800 to repair her credit score and monitor her credit reports and accounts for further unauthorized activity. BMC moved to dismiss Santos’s claims under Rules 12(b) and 12(c), and alternatively sought a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), again arguing that Santos lacked Article III standing because the second amended complaint failed to allege a concrete injury. BMC contended that Santos did not plead any economic damages tied to the unauthorized cellphone account and therefore did not plausibly allege that she was an identity theft or fraud victim, or that any alleged harm was traceable to the data breach. It further argued that her allegations of future risk of identity theft or fraud were speculative. Santos opposed the motion. On September 30, 2024, the district court granted BMC's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. It held that Santos failed to show that the fraudulent cellphone account was traceable to BMC's cyberattack and therefore did not establish Article III standing. The court also found that Santos failed to state a claim under the Stored Communications Act and did not adequately establish minimal diversity under CAFA. It further denied jurisdictional discovery as futile and dismissed the SCA claim with prejudice, while dismissing the Puerto Rico law claims without prejudice. Santos timely appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings on standing and subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals held that Santos failed to plausibly allege that her claimed injury was traceable to BMC's data breach. It found that, beyond a conclusory assertion that her personal information used to open a fraudulent cellphone account came from the breach, the complaint did not plead specific facts connecting the account to BMC's cyberattack. The Court noted that the allegations did not establish a plausible temporal link between the breach and the opening of the account, nor did they support a reasonable inference about when the account was created. It also rejected the argument that BMC's breach notice supported such an inference or that misuse of her information necessarily came from BMC's systems. Finally, the Court found the complaint did not identify what specific types of PII or PHI were allegedly used to open the account or whether that information was even among the data exposed in the breach, concluding that the allegations were insufficient to show causation or standing. Because Santos did not establish traceability, she lacked Article III standing, and the Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to review her claims. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the action. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/4RIJXWfUS. Jesenia A. Martinez -- jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com -- with whom Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, David C. Indiano-Vicic -- david.indiano@indianowilliams.com -- Joanne J. Pimentel de Jesus -- joanne.pimentel@indianowilliams.com -- and Indiano & Williams, P.S.C., were on brief, for appellant. Michael Craig McCall, with whom Law Offices of Michael Craig McCall, José A. Morales Boscio -- jose.morales@himapr.com -- and Morales Boscio Law Offices PSC were on brief, for appellee. BIOGEN INC: $18.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton LLP announced that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB): OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, AND ALISHA ALAIMO, Defendants. Case No. 22-cv-10200-WGY CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PURCHASERS AND ACQUIRERS OF BIOGEN INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 8, 2021 AND JULY 12, 2021, INCLUSIVE A Federal Court has authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Please read this notice carefully. An $18.9 million settlement has been reached for investors in Biogen Inc. common stock between June 8, 2021 and July 12, 2021. if you are a member of the Class, your legal rights will be affected whether you act or not. Notice of Settlement: You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held on September 29, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable William G. Young, at the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, Courtroom 18 – 5th Floor, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the Action as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Class Action Settlement, dated June 5, 2026 ("Stipulation") for $18.9 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Lead Plaintiff expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in relation to their representation of the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. It is possible that the Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing, conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic video conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by telephone or video conference, without further written notice to the Class. To determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by telephone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the website, www.BiogenSecuritiesLitigation.com, for any update before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED BIOGEN INC. ("BIOGEN") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 8, 2021 AND JULY 12, 2021, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION Proof of Claim: To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September 24, 2026) or electronically via the website (no later than 11:59 ET on September 24, 2026). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 24, 2026 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you purchased or acquired Biogen common stock during the period between June 8, 2021 and July 12, 2021, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in this Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. Notice: The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.BiogenSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to or calling: Biogen Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 1-866-274-4004 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim may be made to Lead Counsel: Block & Leviton LLP Michael D. Gaines 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 (617) 398-5600 michael@blockleviton.com Exclusion: If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received by August 25, 2026, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All Class members will be bound by the Settlement even if they do not submit a timely Proof of Claim. Objections: If you are a Class member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, and/or the request for an award to Lead Plaintiff in connection with its representation of the Class. Any objections must be filed with the Court and sent to Lead Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that they are received by September 8, 2026, in the manner and form explained in the Notice available at www.BiogenSecuritiesLitigation.com. June 16, 2026 By Order of the Court United States District Court, District of Massachusetts BLACK ROCK: Aiello Files Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN AIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK ROCK COFFEE BAR, INC., MARK D. DAVIS, RODDERICK F. BOOTH, JEFF HERNANDEZ, DANIEL BRAND, JAKE SPELLMEYER, BRYAN PEREBOOM, RICHARD FEDERICO, GOLDSMITH-GROVER, SARAH ANDREW BRAITHWAITE, KRISTINA CASHMA, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05181 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Black Rock Coffee: (a) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2025 initial public offering; and/or (b) securities between September 12, 2025 and May 12, 2026, inclusive, pursuing claims against under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 15, 2025, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 16,911,764 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $20.00 per share. In the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) Black Rock Coffee's new store openings were leading to a cannibalization of its existing services and revenue; (2) Black Rock Coffee overstated the manner in which its expansion strategy was tailored to avoid "sales transfer"; (3) as a result of "sales transfer," the Company's financial results were materially impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, asserts the complaint. Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. owns and operates a chain of drive-through coffee bars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Attys' Fee Award in Gelis Vacated on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of ARTEM V. GELIS; BHAWAR PATEL; CHRIS WILLIAMS; ASHKOCK PATEL; KENNETH GAGNON ET AL., v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Appellant, Case No. 24-2721 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order awarding attorneys' fees and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. The case concerns whether a court may apply a lodestar multiplier when awarding attorneys' fees under a contractual fee-shifting provision. Although the Supreme Court has limited the use of lodestar multipliers under federal fee-shifting statutes in Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, it has not addressed their use in contractual fee-shifting cases. BMW appealed the District Court's use of a lodestar multiplier to calculate attorneys' fees under a settlement agreement. This appeal concerns the calculation of attorneys' fees following the settlement of a consumer class action. The Plaintiffs sued BMW of North America and its German parent company in September 2017, alleging they sold vehicles with defective timing chains. After the District Court partially granted BMW's motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting 20 federal and state claims on behalf of a nationwide class and 12 state-specific subclasses. The parties conducted four months of discovery before settling the merits of the case through mediation. They later reached a separate agreement on attorneys' fees, providing that the Class Counsel would seek a reasonable fee award from the District Court, to be paid separately by BMW. The Settlement Agreement capped the Class Counsel's fee request at $3.7 million, while BMW agreed not to oppose a request of up to $1.5 million. After the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement, the Class Counsel sought the maximum $3.7 million in attorneys' fees, which BMW opposed. Applying the lodestar method, the District Court found that the Class Counsel reasonably expended 2,713 hours at an average hourly rate of $716, resulting in a $1.9 million lodestar. It then applied a lodestar multiplier after considering the factors set forth in Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp. for awarding fees in common-fund cases. The District Court applied a 1.94 lodestar multiplier, increasing Class Counsel's fee award to $3.7 million. BMW appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded the case for further proceedings in Gelis v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (Gelis I), 49 F.4th 371 (3d Cir. 2022). In Gelis I, the Third Circuit held that the record did not support the $3.7 million fee award because the Class Counsel submitted only three one-page summary billing charts with vague descriptions, preventing the Court from determining whether the hours billed were reasonable or duplicative. BMW also argued that the District Court improperly applied a lodestar multiplier. Although the Third Circuit declined to decide that issue in Gelis I, it noted that the fee award arose under the parties' settlement agreement, not a fee-shifting statute, and observed that the District Court had not adequately explained its reasons for applying the multiplier. On remand, the Class Counsel submitted detailed billing records and again sought $3.7 million in attorneys' fees. They claimed 2,877 hours of work, including an additional 164 hours incurred after the initial fee request, at an average hourly rate of $726, with the hours allocated across pre-litigation, discovery, motion practice, settlement, class administration, and final approval activities. Although the District Court found some of the Class Counsel's billed hours appeared high, it approved them in full because of the case's complexity and technical nature. Using a baseline lodestar of approximately $2.1 million, the court again applied a lodestar multiplier after considering the Gunter and In re AT&T Corp. Securities Litigation factors, this time reducing the multiplier to 1.75. The resulting fee award again totaled $3.7 million. BMW appealed again, arguing that the District Court erred in awarding the Class Counsel $3.7 million in attorneys' fees because the Settlement Agreement did not authorize a lodestar multiplier, no fee enhancement was warranted, and the court improperly calculated the baseline lodestar by finding all of Class Counsel's requested hours reasonable. The Third Circuit held that the Supreme Court's limitations on lodestar multipliers in statutory fee-shifting cases also apply to contractual fee-shifting cases. Although the Settlement Agreement authorized the District Court to consider a lodestar multiplier under federal law, the court erred by applying a 1.75 multiplier without following the principles set forth in Perdue, including the strong presumption that the unenhanced lodestar is reasonable. The Third Circuit also found errors in the calculation of the baseline lodestar and left the determination of reasonable hours to the District Court on remand. Accordingly, it vacated the attorneys' fee award and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/ODSlaJDlx. Melissa Bayly -- melissa.bayly@bipc.com -- Christopher J. Dalton -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- [Argued] Argia J. DiMarco -- argia.dimarco@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY Counsel for Appellant. Gary S. Graifman -- ggraifman@kgglaw.com -- KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN Bruce H. Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- [Argued] Robert H. Solomon -- rsolomon@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE Counsel for Appellees. C&S WHOLESALE: Flores Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of NICEFORO FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin (Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-3097) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 26, 2026. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02278-AC. The case is assigned to Judge Allison Claire. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. distributes grocery products and provides food solutions across the wholesale grocery industry. The Company offers supply chain solutions, category management, and operates corporate-run grocery stores. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Telephone: (415) 659-2600 Facsimile: (415) 659-2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Charleston Says -------------------------------------------------------------- NATASHA CHARLESTON and BRENDA MARITZA TREVIZO NAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC; and PENNEY OPCO LLC doing business as JCPENNEY, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00722-MJT (E.D. Tex., June 26, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendants disregarded the Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII 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, says the suit. Catalyst Brands LLC is an operator of retailer and distributor of apparel and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com CHIRON FINANCIAL: Hirner-Couderc et al. Sue For Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------------ FLORENCE HIRNER-COUDERC, CANDICE HUBERT, BRYAN PHILLIPS, and MICAELA SIEKMANN GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHIRON FINANCIAL LLC; CF MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS LLC; CHIRON FINANCIAL UK LIMITED; TODD HASS, Individually; and JAY KRASOFF, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-04597 (S.D. Tex., June 10, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid commissions, back wages, unremitted retirement-plan contributions, liquidated damages, additional damages, attorney's fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and Texas common and statutory law. During Plaintiffs' employment, the Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay any Plaintiff an overtime premium for any hours worked in excess of 40 in any workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiffs further bring this action under Texas law for breach of contract, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, quantum meruit, fraud and fraudulent inducement, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment because Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs their salaries, wages, and earned commissions but failed and refused to do so. Chiron Financial LLC is an investment bank headquartered in Houston, TX. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Long, Esq. LONG TRIAL FIRM, PLLC 1000 Main Street, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 329-8147 Facsimile: (832) 406-3161 E-mail: jlong@longtrialfirm.com CHRIS PIAETE: Talamante Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY TALAMANTE, et al., v. CHRIS PIAETE, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00509-ART-CLB (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting the stipulation to extend class certification and corresponding deadlines by 60 days as follows: The Plaintiffs' class certification expert Aug. 13, 2026 disclosures and reports: The Defendants' class certification expert Sept. 14, 2026 disclosures and reports: Completion of expert depositions Sept. 28, 2026 related to class certification: The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Oct. 12, 2026 The Defendants' opposition to motion for Nov. 2, 2026 class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Nov. 16, 2026 for class certification: Discovery cut-off: Nov. 30, 2026 Dispositive motion deadline: Jan. 4, 2027 All other provisions of the Scheduling Order as previously modified shall remain in effect. This is a putative class action brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and related state law claims concerning conditions and practices within a state correctional facility. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4yX4C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony P. Sgro, Esq. Elaine Odeh, Esq. SGRO & ROGER 2901 El Camino Avenue, Suite 204 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 384-9800 Facsimile: (702) 665-4120 E-mail: tsgro@sgroandroger.com eodeh@sgroandroger.com The Defendants are represented by: Victoria Corey, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 State of Nevada Way., Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89119 CHRISTIAN DIOR: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03092 (D. Minn., June 25, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.dior.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Christian Dior, Inc. was founded in 1946. The Company's line of business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and copyrights. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CHUBBIES INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHUBBIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03102-MJD-EMB (D. Minn., June 6, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.chubbiesshorts.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Chubbies, Inc. designs and sells casual and athletic apparel for men and kids in the apparel and fashion industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CLOUDFLARE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Recapitalization Proposal --------------------------------------------------------------- CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW PRINCE; MICHELLE ZATLYN; SCOTT SANDELL; KARIM LAKHANI; KATRIN SUDER; STACEY CUNNINGHAM; JOHN GRAHAMCUMMING; MARK HAWKINS; CARL LEDBETTER; and CLOUDFLARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2026-0848 (Del. Ch., June 26, 2026) is an action seeking to challenge the Recapitalization, a conflicted controller transaction specifically designed to allow Cloudflare's Co-Founders and controlling stockholders, Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn, to continue to liquidate massive amounts of their equity while retaining majority voting control of the Company. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Recapitalization provides the Co-Founders a nonratable benefit -- the ability to sell massive amounts of equity while maintaining control. Nevertheless, the Recapitalization proposal only requires the affirmative vote of the holders of the Company's outstanding common stock. In other words, as the Proxy admits, the Co-Founders "have the power to approve and adopt the Charter amendments without the affirmative vote of any other stockholder," says the Plaintiff. Cloudflare, Inc. designs and develops software solutions. The Company offers platform for load balancing, video streaming, security, analysis, and domain registration. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8002 Email: Daniel@jvk-law.com - and - Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Edward G. Timlin, Esq. Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. Aasiya Mirza Glover, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 836-9630 COMPASS INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Transaction Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea V. Brambila, writing for Real Estate News, reports that a Florida couple who purchased a home in 2024 using a Compass agent is challenging the legality of a transaction fee added to their purchase contract. -- Compass noted in February that it was rolling out such fees nationwide and acknowledged the fees as a revenue stream in their Q1 earnings report. -- The brokerage has said charging an administrative fee is a common practice "and is done by many other brands in the industry." A purported class-action lawsuit filed against Compass this week challenges a practice common to some, but not all, brokerages: charging consumers fixed transaction fees, also known as administrative fees. A revenue-generation tactic In February, a month after its acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate, Compass began charging buyers and sellers nationwide a fixed transaction fee of "around several hundred dollars," depending on the state, according to The Real Deal. The new fee represented an opportunity "for Compass to improve its bottom line, with more money earned per deal through the transaction fee," the news outlet reported. Compass' first-quarter earnings report acknowledged the fees as a revenue stream but did not break them down or quantify them separately from gross commission income. "We primarily generate revenue from our owned-brokerage business when we collect a share of the gross sales commissions that these real estate professionals earn from home sales and certain other fees, such as flat transaction commission fees," the report said. Such transaction fees, or "admin fees," have been characterized as "junk" fees that go straight to a brokerage's bottom line (rather than to agents) and make America's home affordability crisis worse. 'Standard practice' for many brokerages Compass has repeatedly defended the additional fees, stating that charging a transaction fee "has been standard practice in major markets" -- including Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and parts of Florida -- "for years, and is done by many other brands in the industry." Compass did not respond to further questions regarding the fees' nationwide rollout; what the fees cover, and whether that is disclosed to buyers and sellers; why Compass charges such fees on top of commissions; or whether Compass plans to roll out the fees to its recently acquired Anywhere brands. An 'illegal' and 'unreasonable' add-on The Compass transaction fee challenged in a June 23 complaint filed in a Palm Beach County Florida circuit court concerns a home purchase that occurred in August 2024, before this year's nationwide fee expansion. Jeff and Milissa Efron have accused Compass of "unfair and deceptive business practices" for allegedly uniformly charging "an undisclosed flat-fee to all Florida purchasing clients." In the Efrons' case, they said they paid $475 at closing despite Compass allegedly telling them "that as the agents of the buyers, their efforts would be paid from the commission paid by sellers." The couple claimed that their purchase contract -- submitted with the complaint as an exhibit -- was a standard purchase and sale agreement approved by Florida Realtors and the Florida bar that had then been amended to include "additional terms" and signed by the couple. A closing statement showed the sellers paid a 2.5% commission to both Compass and to SERHANT, the listing brokerage. The complaint alleged that "the modification of a contract approved by the Florida Bar by a non-lawyer is the illegal practice of law," and that the transaction fee the Efrons paid violates the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act because it is "unreasonable, illegitimate, excessive . . . or were for services which were not performed." The suit seeks class status to include all buyers who paid such a fee to Compass Florida over the past four years before the filing of the complaint -- a number estimated to be "at least" in the hundreds. A blueprint for future litigation? Flat transaction fees are not unique to Compass. The closing statement for the Efrons' purchase showed the home's seller paid a $495 transaction fee to SERHANT on top of the listing brokerage's commission. But as the commissions lawsuits showed, just because a practice is widespread does not mean it cannot be meaningfully challenged. If successful, the Efron suit could serve as a template to pursue similar litigation against Compass or other brokerages charging such fees in other states. Asked whether NAR offered any guidance for members regarding consumer transaction fees, a spokesperson said, "Core to the [Realtor] Code of Ethics is the requirement that members must act in the best interests of their clients. This includes explaining and disclosing all contracts related to the transaction in clear and understandable language and avoiding the misrepresentation of pertinent facts." [GN] CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Corzo Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CORNELL UNIVERSITY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Andrew Corzo, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cornell University, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00125-MFK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges the participation of the Defendants in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to reduce or eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition, and that in fact has artificially inflated the net price of attendance for students receiving financial aid, in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Matthew Kennelly granted on Mar. 31, 2026. The Court certifies a class consisting of all persons who have during the "class period" (a) enrolled in one or more of Defendants' full-time undergraduate programs, (b) received at least some need-based financial aid from one or more Defendants, and (c) whose tuition, fees, room, or board to attend one or more of Defendants' full-time undergraduate programs was not fully covered by the combination of any types of grant or merit aid in any undergraduate year. The remaining named Plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives and should be identified in the class notice. Steven Molo and MoloLamken LLC are appointed as lead counsel for the class, and Freedman Norman Friedland LLP and Berger Montague PC are appointed as co-counsel for the class. The parties are directed to confer regarding an appropriate form of notice and are to submit an agreed notice, or competing proposals if they cannot agree in good faith, by June 10, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Andrew Corzo, et al. v. Cornell University, et al., Case No. 26-8014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ANDREW CORZO, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Steven F. Molo, Esq. Matthew E. Gold, Esq. Lauren Dayton, Esq. Eugene A. Sokoloff, Esq. Eric A. Posner, Esq. MOLOLAMKEN LLP 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 5350 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 450-6707 Email: smolo@mololamken.com mgold@mololamken.com ldayton@mololamken.com esokoloff@mololamken.com eposner@mololamken.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: ecramer@bergermontague.com - and - Richard Schwartz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 257-0255 Email: rschwartz@bergermontague.com - and - Edward J. Normand, Esq. Richard Cipolla, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 10 Grand Central 155 E. 44th Street, Suite 915 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 494-2900 Email: tnormand@fnf.law rcipolla@fnf.law - and - Robert E. Litan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1001 G. Street, NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 Email: rlitan@bergermontague.com Defendants-Petitioners CORNELL UNIVERSITY, et al. are represented by: David Gringer, Esq. Alan Schoenfeld, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Email: david.gringer@wilmerhale.com alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com - and - Seth P. Waxman, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Email: seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com - and - Norman Armstrong, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 842-7800 Email: norman.armstrong@cooley.com - and - Edward W. Feldman, Esq. MILLER SHAKMAN LEVINE & FELDMAN LLP 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 263-3700 Email: efeldman@millershakman.com - and - Britt M. Miller, Esq. Daniel T. Fenske, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Email: bmiller@mayerbrown.com dfenske@mayerbrown.com - and - Robert A. Van Kirk, Esq. Sarah F. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Matthew D. Heins, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Ave. SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Email: rvankirk@wc.com skirkpatrick@wc.com mheins@wc.com - and - Eric Mahr, Esq. Jan Rybnicek, Esq. Andrew Henderson, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 700 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 777-4500 Email: eric.mahr@freshfields.com jan.rybnicek@freshfields.com andrew.henderson@freshfields.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: West Sues Over Deceptive Dog Food Labels ---------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-2182 (W.D. Wash., June 23, 2026) arises from the Defendant's sale of its Kirkland Signature Nature's Domain grain-free dog food. The complaint relates that the Defendant misleadingly markets Nature's Domain grain-free dog food as healthy and safe when, in fact, there is no medical or scientific justification for feeding a dog a grain-free diet high in legume or pulse ingredients, and every dog that consistently consumes Nature's Domain grain-free dog food has an increased risk of developing the fatal heart disease dilated cardiomyopathy ("DCM") and related cardiac damage. The recognition of diet-associated DCM and history of these lamb and rice diets put any prudent dog food retailer on notice that novel, untested formulations should be adequately tested for potential cardiac risks before and during commercial distribution. Despite this notice and knowledge, upon information and belief, Defendant conducted no feeding study to assess the safety of Nature's Domain grain-free dog food prior to selling it. To this day, Defendant has not publicly disclosed any feeding study substantiating any of its health and safety claims. The Plaintiff is a citizen and a resident of Santa Clarita, California who purchased Nature's Domain grain-free dog food at a Costco retail store located in Pacoima, CA. Prior to his purchase, Mr. West reviewed the packaging and marketing materials of the product and saw the claims representing that Nature's Domain is healthy and safe. But these representations and warranties are false, deceptive, misleading, and omitted material facts. He would not have purchased Nature's Domain grain-free dog food if the true facts about its health risks had been known. As a direct result of Defendant's material misrepresentations and omissions, Mr. West suffered, and continues to suffer, economic injury, the complaint contends. Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation is a Washington corporation engaged in the business of marketing, distributing, advertising, and selling consumer goods throughout Washington, California, and the United States, including its private-label brand dog food, Kirkland Signature Nature's Domain grain-free dog food product at issue in this lawsuit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-682-5600 Facsimile: 206-682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Todd E. Hilton, Esq. Stephen D. Ahal, Esq. Joy D. Merklen, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7100 Facsimile: 816-714-7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com hilton@stuevesiegel.com ahal@stuevesiegel.com merklen@stuevesiegel.com - and - Christopher S. Shank, Esq. David L. Heinemann, Esq. SHANK & HEINEMANN, LLC 1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100 Mission Woods, KS 66205 Telephone: 816-471-0909 Facsimile: 816-471-3888 E-mail: chris@shanklawfirm.com david@shanklawfirm.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. Katherine A. Feierabend, Esq. SCHIRGER FEIERABEND LLC 6811 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 312 Overland Park, KS 66202 Telephone: 816-561-6500 E-mail: schirger@sflawyers.com feierabend@sflawyers.com kfeierabend@sflawyers.com COVE DRINKS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Falsely Advertised Sodas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Cove Drinks misleadingly markets its probiotic sodas as being free from artificial sweeteners even though the sodas contain commercially manufactured erythritol. The 24-page lawsuit asserts that the packaging for Cove probiotic sodas includes a prominent statement that the drinks contain "No Artificial Sweeteners." This representation, along with marketing claims that Cove sodas are "naturally sweetened" to produce a "pleasant taste without artificial additives," is understood by reasonable consumers to mean that the products are healthier and less processed than foods that contain artificial ingredients, the suit alleges. However, the filing says that despite repeated representations on the product's packaging and Cove's marketing campaigns, including social media and other online advertisements, each flavor of the probiotic soda contains anywhere from 8 to 12 grams of industrially manufactured erythritol, a sugar alcohol that is naturally found in low levels in fruits such as cantaloupes, pears and grapes. While erythritol can be derived from fruit, the case says it is not "economically feasible" for food manufacturers to use natural erythritol in commercial food products because of the "extraordinarily" high cost of extracting the sweetener from fruits. The lawsuit notes that 50 pounds of fruit would only generate one gram of naturally occurring erythritol. Instead, the erythritol in Cove probiotic sodas is manufactured without any fruit substrate by fermenting strains of the microorganism Moniliella pollinis in a multi-step process, the case relays. The complaint explains that because erythritol used in Cove's beverages is manufactured through industrial fermentation and its only purpose is to sweeten the sodas, it is considered an artificial sweetener. As a result, Cove's claims that the drinks contain "No Artificial Sweeteners" are misleading and deceptive, per the case. The false advertising lawsuit conveys that consumers tend to believe that products free from artificial sweeteners are healthier and less processed, noting that academic literature on consumer behavior confirms that buyers tend to "conflate" natural products with healthy products. Indeed, the suit states that one study of over 4,000 European consumers found that over 75 percent of the respondents believed there was a "close connection" between how natural a food is and its healthfulness. The plaintiff purchased multi-packs of Cove Drinks' probiotic soda after being encouraged by friends and family to seek out healthier alternatives to regular soda, the lawsuit says, with the reasonable and commonly held belief that a product with no artificial sweeteners is more healthful. The suit alleges that Cove's misleading representations leave the plaintiff with a product that is worth substantially less than what she paid. The Cove Drinks class action lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the state of California who purchased Cove sodas marketed with the representation "No Artificial Sweeteners" that contained erythritol within four years prior to the complaint's filing. [GN] DRISCOLL'S INC: Berlinger Sues Over Mislabeled Strawberries ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BERLINGER; ROBERT DUXLER; FRANCESCA HAMMERSMITH; MARIA KHANGI; PHYLICIA WASHINGTON; and BIANCA WEINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DRISCOLL'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-06444 (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2026) alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, the New York's Deceptive Practices Act, New York's Deceptive Practices Act, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Massachusetts General Laws. According to the complaint Driscoll's marketing, labeling, and sale of Strawberries that it represents to consumers as being produced "subject to rigorous food safety and quality standards" while failing to disclose the presence, risk of, and use of persistent fluorinated pesticide compounds associated with so-called "forever chemicals" and PFAS-related compounds. Driscoll's, Inc. grows and distributes fresh strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, and blackberries. The Company partners with independent growers to supply berries and markets them to consumers and retailers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 2325 Third Street, Suite 329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 229-9720 Email: egraham@gelaw.com - and - Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8504 Email: jsarnelli@gelaw.com DUBLIN FARMS: Suit Seeks Migrant Agricultural Workers' Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lauriel Wright, individually on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dublin Farms, Inc., Johnnie Kemp, Eldria Kemp, JSKemp & Brothers LLC, and Hickman Property Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00623 (E.D. Va., June 18, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff arising from the Defendants' violations of her rights under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. This action is brought on behalf of a class of dozens of migrant agricultural workers who graded and packed potatoes at Dublin Farms, Inc.'s potato packing facility during the 2023 and 2024 potato harvest seasons. Johnnie Kemp, Eldria Kemp, and JSKemp & Brothers LLC (collectively Kemp Defendants) recruited, directly or through an agent, Plaintiff and class members in Florida for farm work in Virginia. In recruiting and employing Plaintiff and class members, the Kemp Defendants violated numerous provisions of the AWPA, which was designed to protect migrant farm workers from ending up in abusive situations far from their homes. The Kemp Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals for all hours worked and took out illegal, undisclosed deductions from workers' pay -- either directly or by demanding that workers turn over portions of their wages after receiving their wages, says the suit. Additionally, Dublin Farms likewise played a substantial role in determining the essential terms and conditions of the workers' employment. As a joint employer of Plaintiff and class members, Dublin Farms is liable for violations of the workers' rights under the AWPA and the VWPA, the suit alleges. Dublin Farms is a Virginia stock corporation owned or controlled by the Hickman family, including David Hickman and Mark Hickman. Dublin Farms grows, harvests, and sells potatoes to grocers throughout Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, and is engaged in the production of vegetables for sale in interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nadas, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 899-2991 E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com mhandley@hfajustice.com - and - Martha Guarneiri, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 230 S. Broad Street, 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 422-3478 E-mail: mguarnieri@hfajustice.com - and - Jason B. Yarashes, Esq. Kristin F. Donovan, Esq. Rachel C. McFarland, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone: (434) 529-1813 Facsimile: (434) 977-0558 E-mail: jasony@justice4all.org kristin@justice4all.org rmcfarland@justice4all.org ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Equal Website Access for the Blind Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL CROSBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES EXCHANGE, L.P. d/b/a RITANI, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05448 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.ritani.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Electronic Commodities Exchange, L.P. d/b/a Ritani is a premium jewelry brand known for crafting custom engagement rings, wedding bands, and loose diamonds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com FIRST FEDERAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Armstrong Says ----------------------------------------------------------- PORTIA ARMSTRONG; ERICHA EVANS; ABIGAIL LIDDELL; SANDRA MCINNIS; LORI OWENS; AMANDA PEARSON; FELISA WALTERS; and PAUL WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF PASCAGOULAMOSS POINT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00180-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., June 26, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on June 10, 2026, a known cybercriminal gang, WorldLeaks, claimed responsibility for a cyberattack against the Defendant, during which the cybercriminals were able to access and exfiltrate the Private Information of potentially several thousand customers that the Defendant managed (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect the Private Information entrusted to Defendant for either services or employment or both. First Federal Savings and Loan Association Pascagoulamoss Point provides banking and financial products and services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq. Katherine B. Riley, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MI 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Gary Yarborough, Jr., Esq. YARBOROUGH LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 4168 Bay Saint Louis, MS 39521 Telephone: (228) 342-7987 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 Email: Gary@yarboroughlaw.co - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com FIRST SOLAR: Day Suit Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- CLAIRE DAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST SOLAR, INC., MARK R. WIDMAR, and ALEXANDER R. BRADLEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03787 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The complaint relates 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. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, asserts the complaint. The Defendants seek damages by reason of the acts and transactions alleged herein, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. Plaintiff Claire Day acquired First Solar securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Defendant First Solar, Inc. 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. Defendant Mark R. Widmar served as First Solar's Chief Executive Officer. Defendant Alexander R. Bradley served as First Solar's Chief Financial Officer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: alieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com GATEWAY CHURCH: Wins Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Katherine Leach, Garry K. Leach, Mark Browder, and Terri Browder, individually and on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gateway Church, Robert Morris, and Steve Dulin, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-885 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted Gateway Church and Robert Morris's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint in a Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs alleged that Gateway Church, its founder Robert Morris, and Steve Dulin misrepresented how tithe dollars would be spent. Plaintiffs claimed Defendants promised that 15 percent of tithes would go to global missions and Jewish ministry partners, but instead diverted funds to unspecified secret organizations. Plaintiffs asserted claims for misrepresentation and fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the last of which appeared for the first time in the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs also alleged Defendants refused to refund tithes after promising to do so. Defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds, chief among them the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, which bars civil courts from adjudicating matters of religious governance and doctrine. The Court had previously denied a similar motion in its September 17 order, finding the first amended complaint implicated non-religious conduct such as concealment and financial irregularities. Defendants argued that the Fifth Circuit's intervening decision in McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention required a different outcome. The Court agreed that McRaney controlled. It found that resolving Plaintiffs' claims would require the Court to determine the meaning of terms like global missions, Jewish ministry partners, and outreach efforts, and to evaluate whether Gateway properly allocated tithe funds among charitable purposes. The Court noted Plaintiffs had not alleged that Morris, Dulin, or any other church leader personally profited from the diverted funds, distinguishing the case from one involving simple embezzlement. Because Plaintiffs' claims centered on statements made during sermons, in the church's Members' Handbook, and on its website, the Court held that adjudicating them would require it to evaluate the truth of religious teachings and internal management decisions, both of which fall outside its jurisdiction under the First Amendment. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and directed the Clerk to close the case. Because the claims were dismissed, the Court denied as moot Gateway's motion to stay discovery and Morris's motion to strike class allegations. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 23, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Da0d51 from PacerMonitor.com. GOOGLE LLC: Gomez Wrongful Termination Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PEDRO GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-15407-4 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of King County, Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02027 to the proceeding. The class action arises from Defendant's alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy, race and disability discrimination, retaliation under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, protected leave discrimination and retaliation under Washington's Paid Family and Medical Leave program, and violation of Washington's personnel file request laws. Headquartered in California, Google LLC provides internet related services and products including web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Melissa Mordy, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 929 108th Ave NE, Suite 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 646-6100 Facsimile: (425) 646-6199 E-mail: missymordy@dwt.com - and - Katie Loberstein, Esq. Aliah McCord, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: katieloberstein@dwt.com aliahmccord@dwt.com GREATER ROCHESTER: Agrees to $2.15MM Data Breach Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association (GRIPA) has agreed to a $2,150,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over the May 2023 data breach affecting MOVEit, a file transfer software used by the healthcare provider, that potentially exposed the information of patients, other healthcare providers and physicians. The $2.15 million Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 25, 2026. The deal covers all GRIPA patients, individual healthcare providers and physicians in the United States whose personally identifiable and/or protected healthcare information was impacted by the MOVEit data breach. Court documents state that approximately 280,616 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the GRIPA data breach settlement can be found at MOVEitSettlementGRIPA.com. Settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $2,500 for "ordinary" losses stemming from the breach. This benefit covers expenses related to bank fees, phone calls, cell charges, data charges, postage, travel, and the purchase of credit reports, credit monitoring or other identity theft insurance between May 31, 2023 and September 3, 2026. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an ordinary-loss payment. As part of this benefit, class members can also receive reimbursement for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members can also file a claim form for up to $10,000 for "extraordinary losses" incurred between May 31, 2023 and September 3, 2026 due to the GRIPA data breach. This benefit covers the costs of professional fees, credit repair services and other expenses not covered by the ordinary-loss payout. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an extraordinary-loss payment. In lieu of an ordinary- or extraordinary-loss payout, class members can instead file a claim form to receive an approximately $100 cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of this payment may increase or decrease, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. In addition to any cash from the data breach settlement, all class members can file a claim to receive two years of medical data and credit monitoring, which includes identity theft insurance. To file a GRIPA settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the claimant ID and password found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All GRIPA settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by September 3, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association settlement following a hearing on September 3, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association class action lawsuit alleged that the sensitive information of the healthcare group's patients, providers and physicians was exposed as a result of a cyberattack on the third-party MOVEit file transfer software utilized by GRIPA and numerous other healthcare providers and institutions in May 2023. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised by the breach included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health and treatment information, health insurance information, prescription information and prescriber information. [GN] HARBOR DISTRIBUTING: Sanctions for AI Filing in Quinteros Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of JAIME ARGUELLO AMAYA QUINTEROS, Plaintiff, v. HARBOR DISTRIBUTING, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents; KEVIN A. LIPELES et al., Objectors and Appellants, Case No. A174202 (cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order imposing monetary sanctions against Lipeles Law Group and its attorneys. This appeal arises from a sanctions order against Lipeles Law Group, APC and its attorneys Kevin Lipeles, Thomas Schelly, and Jasmine Badawi (together, LLG) for improperly using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in filing an otherwise meritless pleading. The trial court found the conduct violated Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7, subdivision (b), as well as the attorneys' ethical and professional obligations. On appeal, LLG argued that the trial court violated the safe harbor provision of Section 128.7, the sanctions were unwarranted, and any award of sanctions to the opposing party was improper. In 2024, LLG filed two putative class actions against Harbor Distributing and related entities alleging California wage and hour violations. The first, filed in Los Angeles on behalf of Sonia Elizabeth Valero Ascensao, was later amended to add claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The second, filed in San Francisco on behalf of Jaime Arguello Amaya Quinteros, asserted similar wage and hour claims and was likewise amended to include PAGA claims. In April, the parties' joint case management statement noted Harbor's position that the later-filed San Francisco action should be stayed under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction because of the earlier Los Angeles action. Harbor moved to stay the San Francisco case on June 13, arguing it was an overlapping, duplicative action, and the trial court granted its request for judicial notice of the Los Angeles complaint. LLG opposed Harbor's motion to stay on June 27, arguing that California law requires complete, rather than partial, overlap between two actions before a stay is warranted. In reply on July 3, Harbor argued that the opposition misstated the law, misrepresented case authority, and relied on citations that contradicted the cases' actual holdings while failing to address the factual basis for staying the duplicative action. On July 8, the trial court issued a tentative ruling granting Harbor’s motion to stay under its inherent authority and the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and indicated in a footnote that it would separately issue an order to show cause (OSC) regarding sanctions based on LLG’s miscitation of cases, fabricated quotations, and misrepresentation of legal authority. After LLG stipulated to the tentative ruling, the court adopted it on July 9, finding the San Francisco and Los Angeles actions substantially similar, involving nearly identical parties and claims, with eight of nine causes of action overlapping and both cases filed by the same law firm on behalf of closely related classes. In a separate OSC, the court found LLG's opposition contained nonexistent citations, fabricated quotations, and serious misstatements of controlling authority, including reliance on two cases that did not exist as cited and at least eight fabricated quotations attributed to reported decisions. It further noted that if generated by artificial intelligence, the conduct was especially concerning because the false quotations were attributed to real cases, making them harder to detect, and concluded the conduct appeared to violate Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7, subdivision (b), and ethical rules, ordering LLG to show cause why $6,000 in sanctions and other relief should not be imposed. In response to the OSC, Lipeles, Schelly, and Badawi each submitted declarations apologizing to the court, denying any intent to mislead, and asking that sanctions not be imposed. They explained that LLG, as a small firm, regularly retained contract attorneys for law and motion work, and that Badawi had engaged contract attorney James Sansone to draft the opposition. They stated Sansone had previously produced reliable work, giving them no reason to question his legal research or citations. At the July 11 hearing, after reviewing the declarations, the trial court criticized Sansone for failing to acknowledge any mistakes, explain the fabricated quotations and misstatements of law, or offer an apology, then took the OSC under submission. On July 16, the trial court issued a sanctions order against LLG, finding the San Francisco action substantially duplicated an earlier Los Angeles case and that LLG's opposition to the motion to stay was groundless. The court found contract attorney James Sansone's declaration not credible, citing unexplained inaccurate citations and multiple fabricated quotations in the brief, and further found that the responses by Lipeles, Schelly, and Badawi were in part false and inconsistent with prior filings showing awareness of the related Los Angeles action. The court concluded that all attorneys involved failed to meet their professional and ethical duties, holding LLG ultimately responsible because its attorneys signed and filed the defective pleading, including conduct involving apparent use of generative AI without verification. For violations of Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 and related ethical rules, the court imposed joint and several sanctions of $5,000 payable to Harbor and $1,000 payable to the court and ordered service of the sanctions order on the client and relevant courts. LLG later filed a notice of compliance. LLG timely appealed the sanctions order under Code of Civil Procedure Section 904.1, subdivision (a)(12), arguing that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 128.7, subdivision (c)(2), the sanctions were unwarranted, and the monetary sanctions awarded to Harbor were improper. The Court of Appeal held that LLG forfeited its arguments challenging alleged procedural errors and the propriety of awarding sanctions payable to Harbor. It further concluded that the sanctions order was not an abuse of discretion and therefore affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Court of Appeal held that LLG forfeited its procedural challenges to the sanctions order because it had multiple opportunities to address the alleged issues but failed to withdraw its opposition, correct the record, or seek relief even after the tentative ruling and OSC were issued. On the merits, the Court found no abuse of discretion, noting that LLG never adequately explained the filing of a substantially duplicative action or the filing of an opposition based on unsupported and groundless legal arguments, including material reliance on unverified generative AI output. The Court concluded that counsel abdicated their duty to the court and their client, making the sanctions appropriate. Finally, it held that LLG also forfeited its challenge to the portion of the sanctions payable to Harbor by failing to raise the issue properly in the trial court and inadequately presenting it on appeal, and it therefore affirmed the sanctions order in full. The Respondents were awarded costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/S4dKKrkK4. Lipeles Law Group, APC, Julian B. Bellenghi -- Julian@kallaw.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff, Objectors and Appellants. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Sean T. Strauss -- sstrauss@seyfarth.com -- Michael W. Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- David D. Jacobson -- djacobson@seyfarth.com -- Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Young Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERWIN YOUNG, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Erwin Young, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00532-HG-WRP, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The putative class action concerns Defendant Hawaiian Airlines' denial of religious and/or medical exemptions from its COVID-19 vaccine policy, which requires employees to get vaccinated or face termination. The Plaintiffs allege that Hawaiian Airlines' denial of their requests for medical and/or religious exemptions was discriminatory and retaliatory, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII. On Feb. 10, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Helen Gillmor granted on May 20, 2026. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. The case is closed. The appellate case is styled as Young, et al. v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3854, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ERWIN YOUNG, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: William A. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON LAW CENTER, A LAW CORPORATION American Savings Bank Tower 1001 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 - and - Walker Moller, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 - and - Christopher D. Wiest, Esq. CHRIS WIEST LAW 50 E. Rivercenter Boulevard, Suite 1280 Covington, KY 41011 Defendants-Appellees HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., et al. are represented by: John S. Rhee, Esq. ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800 Honolulu, HI 96813 - and - Nickolas Alexander Kacprowski, Esq. William Stewart Hunt, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800 Honolulu, HI 96813 HOMETAP EQUITY: Crawford Sues Over Deceptive Mortgage Loan Product ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARLENE CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC and HOMETAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS II, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-03457 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged deceptive and misleading mortgage loan business practices in violation of the Truth-in Lending Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Hometap breaks federal and state lending laws and attempts to avoid their protections by ensnaring homeowners with its complex, confusing, and high-risk loans which Hometap deceptively brands as "Option Purchase Agreements," and affiliated documents, which falsely claim "THIS IS NOT A LOAN." The complaint asserts that Hometap's product operates like any other loan. In exchange for a cash advance paid to the consumer, Hometap receives a mortgage-secured right to a percentage of the property's value which its contract describes as the "Hometap Share." To disguise that Hometap makes money as a lender and to avoid licensing and substantive controls on its lending, Hometap frames its product as an "option agreement" rather than a loan, that is, in exchange for an upfront payment, Hometap receives an "option" to acquire a percentage interest in the consumer's home, which vests after ten years, alleges the suit. Hometap Equity Partners, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The Company is the primary operating entity, employs Hometap's employees, and negotiates and facilitates its real estate transactions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 998-2299 E-mail: ksimplicio@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Chimaraoke Iko, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: riko@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 Facsimile: (215) 827-5403 E-mail: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com HY-VEE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman, writing for Iowa Capital Dispatch, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against Hy-Vee Inc., alleging the grocery store chain violates federal labor laws by failing to pay overtime for department managers. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on behalf of former employee Dawn Nicosia and other Hy-Vee workers. It seeks to recover what it claims are unpaid overtime wages, plus penalties and interest for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. A Hy-Vee spokesperson said Friday, June 26, the company believes the lawsuit and allegations lack merit and will be addressed through the legal process. The company operates more than 240 retail stores in several Midwestern states, including Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The lawsuit alleges salaried positions that carry the title of department manager, which are below the level of store director, assistant store director and store manager, are designed to circumvent payment of overtime wages. The salaried positions include department managers for the stores' bakery, food service, meat department and produce department, as well as salaried, trainee-level department managers. The lawsuit alleges Nicosia was employed as a bakery manager at a Hy-Vee store in Peoria, Illinois, from January 2024 through May 2025, and that she routinely worked more than 40 hours per week without collecting overtime compensation. According to the lawsuit, Hy-Vee department managers are required to work 45 hours per week at a minimum. Their work, the lawsuit alleges, requires little specialized skills, no capital investment, and does not primarily include managerial responsibilities or the exercise of meaningful independent judgment -- the duties typically associated with overtime-exempt management positions. The lawsuit alleges the department managers spend more than half their time engaged in manual labor and physical movement and exertion, as opposed to working in an office. They do not, the lawsuit claims, have responsibility for hiring, firing, disciplining or directing the work of others. As such, their work does not "materially differ from the duties of non-exempt, hourly paid employees," the lawsuit alleges. Through a "centralized, company-wide policy, pattern, and practice of minimizing labor costs," Hy-Vee has violated state and federal wage-and-hour laws, the lawsuit claims. In addition, the lawsuit claims the "willful" nature of the violations is demonstrated by the company's alleged failure to investigate prior complaints from salaried department managers. The lawsuit seeks class action status due to the number of potential plaintiffs being so large as to make individualized litigation impractical. The plaintiff is represented by Madison Fiedler-Carlson of the Fiedler Law Firm in Johnston, and by Bethany A. Hilbert of the Head Law Firm in Chicago, Illinois. [GN] IMS US LLC: Faces Hedges Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IM8 (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04897 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating 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. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant failed and refused to remove the access barriers of its website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, www.im8health.com, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, IM8 (US) LLC owns and operates the website which offers dietary supplements. 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 JAMES JAMES: Delanay Seeks to Certify Class of H-Block Prisoners ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM DELANAY, et al., v. JAMES R. JAMES et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00846-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class of H-Block prisoners incarcerated at SCI Houtzdale. A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZcmUoC at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] JEROME HARRIS: Court OK's Proposed Form of Notice ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Jerome Harris et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order granting approval to the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and directing notice to the members of the class. The Court sets the Notice Date as no later than July 31, 2026. The notice contains clear, concise, plain, and easily understood language regarding (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the definition of the class certified, and (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses. In order to best serve the needs of the case, protect class members, and fairly conduct the action, the Court will defer ordering notice of the class action. The Court will adopt July 31, 2026, as the Notice Date and orders that notice be disseminated no later than that date. Based on a proposed Notice Date of July 31, the Plaintiffs have also suggested an opt-out deadline of Sept. 11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court sets Sept. 11, 2026, as the opt-out deadline for the notice of class action. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in an order entered on Jan. 2, 2026. The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration in an order entered May 29, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X9U3sb at no extra charge.[CC] JP MORGAN: Bodea Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- 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, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. Certifying the proposed Class defined as follows in the accompanying Memorandum of Law: "Clients of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("JPMS") who had cash deposits or balances in the Chase Deposit Sweep – IRA (ADP: A000CU7), JPMorgan Deposit Sweep – IRA (ADP: A000CU8), Chase Deposit Sweep (ADP: A000CF1), or JPMorgan Deposit Sweep (ADP: A000CF2) cash sweep ADPs from Aug. 24, 2018 through the date of the class notice"; and "Clients of JPMS who had cash deposits or balances in the JPMORGAN DEPOSIT ACCT B BROKERAGE NON RET JPMC BANK NA (ADP: A000AV4), JPMORGAN DEPOSIT ACCT D BROKERAGE RET JPMC BK NA (ADP: A000AV5), JPM DEPOSIT ACCT N BROKERAGE NON RET JPMC BK NA (ADP: A000MD5), or JPM DEPOSIT ACCT P BROKERAGE RET JPMC BK NA (ADP: A000MD7) cash sweep ADPs from March 5, 2020 through the date of the class notice." 3. Certifying the proposed IRA Subclass defined as follows in the accompanying Memorandum of Law: "Members of the Class who maintained an Individual Retirement Account ("IRA") with JPMS and had cash deposits or balances swept from their IRA." 4. Appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and IRA Subclass; and 5. Appointing the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel and Class Local Counsel. 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=Qsst7m 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. 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 - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, 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 JP MORGAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------- 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 Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file its response regarding its position on the redactions by Monday, July 6, 2026. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, memorandum of law, and 47 related exhibits, in which they redacted certain discovery material that J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("JPMS") designated as "confidential" pursuant to the parties' protective order. JPMorgan is an American multinational banking institution. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IANrFZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jayant W. Tambe, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281-1047 Telephone: (212) 326-3604 E-mail: jtambe@jonesday.com KELLER WILLIAMS: Discovery Scheduling Order Entered in Garvey Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYAN GARVEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00920-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting stipulation to enter discovery scheduling order after stay for mediation. The Parties stipulate to the entry of the following discovery schedule, pursuant to the requirements of the Order for Stay Pending Mediation entered April 9, 2026. The parties therefore request the entry of the following schedule for the remainder of the case: a. Class Notice to Be Given: Aug. 28, 2026 b. Opt Out Deadline: Oct. 30, 2026 c. Close of Discovery: Nov. 27, 2026 d. Dispositive Motion Deadline: Dec. 18, 2026 e. Joint Pretrial Order Deadline: Jan. 18, 2027 (unless dispositive motions are filed) Keller is an American technology and international real estate franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j9FKhq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Craig K. Perry, Esq. CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES 6210 N. Jones Blvd. #753907 Las Vegas, NV 89136-8985 Telephone: (702) 228-4777 Facsimile: (702) 943-7520 E-mail: cperry@craigperry.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert McCoy, Esq. MC LAW NEVADA 1775 Village Center Circle, Suite 110 Las Vegas, NV 89134O Telephone: (702) 570-5435 E-mail: rob@mclawnevada.com KROGER CO: Wins Preliminary Nod for $17MM Deal in "Kirkbride" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the Case Captioned as Judy Kirkbride and Beeta Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Kroger Co., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00022 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement in an Opinion and Order. Plaintiff Judy Kirkbride filed the action on January 5, 2021, on behalf of a putative class of persons who paid, in full or in part, for a prescription generic drug that Kroger included in its Rx Savings Club and who were insured through a third-party payor. Plaintiffs alleged Kroger engaged in a pricing scheme that overcharged insured customers by failing to report its discounted Savings Club prices as its usual and customary prices for insured transactions. Plaintiffs asserted claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The court denied Kroger's motion to dismiss on July 12, 2023, and, after extensive discovery, granted class certification on April 9, 2025. Kroger sought permission to appeal that ruling to the Sixth Circuit, which held the appeal in abeyance pending mediation. The parties mediated on August 21, 2025, and subsequently reached the proposed Settlement Agreement now before the court. The Settlement Class covers all individuals in the United States and its territories who paid, in whole or in part, for one or more prescription drugs from Kroger using insurance during the Settlement Class Period, December 9, 2018, through the date notice is disseminated. Kroger agreed to fund a non-reversionary, all-cash Settlement Fund of $17,000,000. Class members must submit a claim form by the applicable deadline to receive payment under a court-approved Plan of Allocation and Distribution. Class Counsel intends to seek attorneys' fees of one-third of the Settlement Fund, expenses not to exceed $610,325.71, and a Service Award of $5,000 for Plaintiffs. Applying the factors from UAW v. General Motors Corp., the court found the settlement resulted from arm's-length, mediator-led negotiations and showed no sign of collusion. The court noted that a one-third fee award is typical in the Sixth Circuit under the percentage-of-the-fund method and stated it favors an award in the range of 25 percent to 33 percent, though the fee request will be evaluated further once Plaintiffs submit additional briefing. The court concluded the settlement falls within the range of possible approval. **Class Action Status.** The action was previously certified as a litigation class on April 9, 2025. For settlement purposes only, the court preliminarily certified a broader Settlement Class under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), finding it nationwide in scope and inclusive of pharmacy benefit managers and both brand and generic drugs. The court preliminarily determined that numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy were satisfied, and that common questions predominate over individual ones. The court appointed Judy Kirkbride and Beeta Lewis as class representatives and appointed Bursor and Fisher, P.A., Arisohn LLC, and Smith Krivoshey, PC as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). The court appointed Angeion Group as Settlement Administrator and Escrow Agent. The Notice Deadline falls 60 days after entry of the order, with the Opt-Out and Objection Deadlines set 120 days after entry, the Claim Filing Deadline set 180 days after entry, and the Fairness Hearing scheduled for January 11, 2027, at 10 a.m. in Columbus, Ohio. A copy of the Class Action Settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fGYmUr from PacerMonitor.com LASER EYE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mack Suit Due April 16, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AALIUZ MACK, v. LASER EYE CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY, Case No. 5:26-cv-00930-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Freeman entered a case management order as follows: EVENT DATE OR DEADLINE Last day to file motion for Class April 16, 2027 Certification: Last day to hear dispositive motions: Jan. 13, 2028, at 9:00 am Final pretrial conference: April 13, 2028, at 1:30 pm Trial: May 15, 2028, at 9:00 am The Defendant is a medical group practice located in San Jose, CA that specializes in Ophthalmology. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QK0VEZ at no extra charge.[CC] LIVE NATION: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Due July 30 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MADRIGAL, et al., v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order approving the stipulation and setting the following schedule for class certification briefing in Madrigal and Holmes: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file July 30, 2026 renewed motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file Sept. 22, 2026 opposition to renewed motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Nov. 13, 2026 reply in support of renewed motion for class certification: Hearing on renewed motion for class Dec. 7, 2026, Certification: at 8:30 a.m. The June 22, 2026 status conference is taken off-calendar as to Madrigal v. Live Nation and Holmes v. Ticketmaster. Live Nation is an American multinational entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zMDKTG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brandon D. Fox, Esq. Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Sarah S. Lee, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 E-mail: BFox@jenner.com ASmith@jenner.com SLee@jenner.com LUFAX HOLDING: Court Appoints Zhou, Tchind as Co-Lead Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as re: Lufax Holding Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:26-cv-04122-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order appointing Yanqin Zhou and Bernard Nenda Tchind as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and appointing Rosen Law and Pomerantz as Co-Lead Counsel. The motion of John M. Mollica to serve as lead plaintiff is denied. The Court entered an order that this matter shall proceed under the name In re: Lufax Holding Ltd. Securities Litigation. If the defendants intend to move to dismiss, the letter should also include a proposed briefing schedule on that motion. Because they are proper movants, have the largest financial interest, and meet the requirements of Rule 23, Zhou and Tchinda are appointed as co-lead plaintiffs. The case is a putative class action under the federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of Lufax Holding Ltd. securities between April 7, 2023 and Jan. 26, 2026. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants concealed adverse information about Lufax's business and that the eventual disclosure of this information precipitated a decline in the value of Lufax's securities, harming shareholders. Lufax provides financial services to small businesses in China. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nY5o8R at no extra charge.[CC] MACYS.COM LLC: Hayward Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LATOYA HAYWARD, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MACYS.COM, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2026CH03765, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-06848 to the proceeding. The case arises out Defendant's violations the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and its breach of implied contract. Headquartered in New York, NY, Macys.com, LLC operates Macy's, Inc's website and mobile application, which offer clothing, shoes, beauty products, and home furnishings. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Francis A. Citera, Esq. Meredith R. Mandell, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 360 North Green Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 E-mail: CiteraF@gtlaw.com Meredith.Mandell@gtlaw.com MARATHON REFINING: Class Settlement in Wood Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD ET AL., v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICE LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class settlement. The motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards is granted as follows: -- Class Counsel is awarded $3,000,000 in attorneys' fees and $11,000 in litigation costs. -- The Plaintiffs are granted an incentive awards totaling $37,000. The parties shall file a post-distribution accounting in accordance with this District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements no later than March 5, 2027. The Court sets compliance deadline on Feb. 26, 2027 on the Court's 9:01 a.m. calendar to verify timely filing of the post-distribution accounting. The Settlement Agreement defines the class as: "All current and former operators of Marathon (or any of its affiliates or successors) who worked at the Martinez Refinery or Chemical Plant and were assigned mandatory standby shifts between June 24, 2015 and Oct. 5, 2025 and all maintenance workers of Marathon (or any of its affiliates or successors) who worked at the Martinez Refinery and were assigned mandatory standby shifts, between June 24, 2015 and Oct. 31, 2020." Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, defendant, without admitting liability, will pay $9,000,000 plus amounts for payroll taxes into a common settlement fund. The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action complaint on June 24, 2019 against defendant Marathon challenging its "standby" policies. The Plaintiffs allege that Marathon required Operators and Maintenance Workers at its Martinez facility to be available for designated 12- and/or 24-hour standby shifts in addition to their regular shifts and to be ready to receive calls during specific time periods Marathon is a provider of logistics and supply chain solutions in the refining sector. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CeS8Yi at no extra charge.[CC] MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Dismissed w/o Prejudice in Abundez Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN ABUNDEZ, v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00754-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order that: (1) Dismisses without prejudice Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, and Samuel Olson, Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office, as respondents; (2) Denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, except to Find that Martin Abundez must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (3) Directs the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. Recent proceedings in a case out of California suggest that Hurtado remains a barrier to relief for petitioners like Mr. Abundez. The District judge's decision vacating Hurtado is thus unlikely to change the outcome of a custody redetermination motion filed by an individual like Mr. Abundez, who is outside of California. Without a prior denial on the merits alleged to be erroneous, the court leaves the parties to follow their process under section 1226. Mr. Abundez is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection. He has a history of arrests and convictions in Illinois dating back to 2003. He came to the attention of immigration officials in 2010 during a targeted operation by Chicago police and immigration enforcement agents. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4EGtNE at no extra charge.[CC] MARLBORO-CHESTERFIELD PATHOLOGY: Breach Suit Deal Gets Prelim OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Marlboro-Chesterfield Pathology, P.C. has agreed to a settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the pathology laboratory failed to protect the sensitive information in its care from a data breach discovered in January 2025. The Marlboro-Chesterfield Pathology class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 22, 2026. The deal covers all living individuals whose personally identifiable and/or personal health information was maintained on Marlboro-Chesterfield Pathology's systems that were compromised as a result of the data breach announced by the lab on or around May 22, 2025. Court documents state that approximately 235,000 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Marlboro-Chesterfield Pathology (MCP) data breach settlement can be found at M-CPSettlement.com. Marlboro-Chesterfield Pathology settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $1,000 for documented losses stemming from the data breach. This benefit covers losses resulting from identity theft or fraud and the costs of professional fees, credit repair services, freezing or unfreezing credit, credit monitoring services, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or correspondence, to receive a documented-loss payout. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members whose Social Security numbers were compromised in the data breach can file a claim form to receive a $10 alternative cash payment. Only class members whose Social Security numbers were involved in the data breach can receive this cash payout, court documents state. In addition to any monetary relief, all class members can submit a claim to receive one year of three-bureau credit monitoring services. To file an MCP settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the class member ID listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All MCP settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 21, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Marlboro-Chesterfield Pathology settlement following a hearing on October 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Marlboro-Chesterfield Pathology class action lawsuit alleged that the North Carolina-based gastrointestinal and surgical pathology laboratory failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity protections to safeguard the sensitive information of current and former patients, which allegedly led to a data breach detected by the facility on or around January 16, 2025. Per court documents, private information that may have been exposed in the breach included names, addresses, dates of birth, medical treatment information, health insurance information and, for some patients, Social Security numbers. [GN] MARUTI TRANSPORTATION: Initial Case Order Entered in Yanez Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN YANEZ, v. MARUTI TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-01334-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an initial case order: For a just and efficient resolution of this case, the parties are directed to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Lead Counsel and any pro se plaintiff shall file a notice as to whether a related action is pending in the Middle District or elsewhere as required under Local Rule 1.07(c). Under Local Rule 2.0l(b)(l)(G), all attorneys appearing before this court are required to register for CM/ECF docketing within 14 days of their entry of appearance in any action pending before this court. Consent to Trial by Magistrate Judge: Under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, the parties may consent to have the assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in this case, including the trial (and can provide a date certain for trial, unlike the District Court.). The Defendant is a specialized mobility and transit management company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l4NtrO at no extra charge.[CC] MASSACHUSETTS: Bid for Class Certification in Green Due July 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Green, et al., v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11504 (D. Mass., ), the Hon. Judge George A. Otoole, Jr. entered an order adopting the following deadlines: -- Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification is due July 10, 2026. -- The Defendants' opposition briefs are due August 21, 2026. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. The Defendant is the government agency responsible for operating the prison system of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[CC] MDL 3035: Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice in Retirement Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035, Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order granting approval to the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and directing notice to the members of the class. The Court sets the Notice Date as no later than July 31, 2026. The notice contains clear, concise, plain, and easily understood language regarding (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the definition of the class certified, and (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses. In order to best serve the needs of the case, protect class members, and fairly conduct the action, the Court will defer ordering notice of the class action. The Court will adopt July 31, 2026, as the Notice Date and orders that notice be disseminated no later than that date. Based on a proposed Notice Date of July 31, the Plaintiffs have also suggested an opt-out deadline of Sept. 11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court sets Sept. 11, 2026, as the opt-out deadline for the notice of class action. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in an order entered on Jan. 2, 2026. The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration in an order entered May 29, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JgQsSn at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to consider whether information designated confidential by the Defendant should be filed under seal. The motion is made in connection with material referenced in the Plaintiffs' response to Meta's Notice of the demonstrative it presented at the class certification hearing. Plaintiffs seek consideration of the following information designated as confidential by Meta: Document Material to Seal The Plaintiffs' Response to Meta's Pg. 1 column 1, one word notice of demonstrative exhibit Pg. 2 column 1, two words Pg. 3 column 1, one word Meta is the American multinational technology company, formerly known as Facebook. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jf3XYV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALINA SIPP-ALPERS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG and MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-11822-PBS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Saris entered an order that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is allowed with respect to the Out-of-State Plaintiffs but denied with respect to Sipp-Alpers. The Court concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants with respect to the Out-of-State Plaintiffs' claims and thus that those individuals' claims must be dismissed without prejudice. As to Sipp-Alpers' claim, however, the Court determines that it has personal jurisdiction and that the claim may proceed against Bloomberg individually (in addition to the Campaign). The Plaintiffs allege that both Bloomberg and the Campaign committed breach of contract by terminating the Plaintiffs' employment on March 31, 2020, despite guaranteeing compensation through November 2020. Michael Bloomberg is an American businessman and politician. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=naPfnd at no extra charge.[CC] MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE: Pitts Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moody Bible Institute. The case is styled as Jacquel Pitts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moody Bible Institute, Case No. 1:26-cv-07208 (N.D. Ill., June 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Moody Bible Institute -- https://www.moody.edu/ -- offers accredited Christian higher education in Chicago, Washington, Michigan and online, with college, seminary and Bible programs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 609-6910 Fax: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Bid for Magistrate Judge Recusal Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.S. Bank, National Association, As Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust, v. Carmine P. Amelio, Paul A. Amelio, Alfonso Amelio, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Quicken Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-00070-MAD-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell J. Katz entered an order denying the Defendants' motion seeking the recusal of Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz. The Defendants also request "that the Order and Report-Recommendation be held in abeyance and not acted upon until this motion is decided." The Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motion. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is denied. The Defendants' arguments that I should recuse myself reflect their obvious disagreement with the Order and Report-Recommendation. Their remedy was to file objections with the District Court, which they did. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hrvgnd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean K. Monahan, Esq. Friedman Vartolo, LLP 1325 Franklin Ave, Ste 160 Garden City, NY 11530-1631 Telephone: (212) 471-5100 Facsimile: (212) 471-5150 E-mail: smonahan@friedmanvartolo.com MXR IMAGING INC: Bonds Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Rick Bonds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MXR IMAGING, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-04189 (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to field service engineers who service medical imaging equipment for Defendant. The Defendant classifies field service engineers as exempt from overtime, pays them on a salary basis, and does not pay overtime compensation when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Field service engineers perform non-exempt field-service work, including traveling to customer sites, troubleshooting, repairing, servicing, installing, de-installing, and maintaining medical imaging equipment. Field service engineers regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Their work includes on-site service calls, required travel, driving time, waiting time, paperwork, expense reports, emails, calls, after-hours work, weekend work, and other job-related tasks. Defendant does not pay field service engineers one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant sometimes pays additional amounts labeled as after-hours pay or overtime pay period compensation. Those payments confirm that Defendant knows field service engineers perform work outside regular business hours, but they do not reflect payment of all overtime premiums required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried CT/MRI/PET-CT Field Service Engineer, a position referred to herein as a field service engineer. The Defendant is a corporation formed under the laws of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Achchana Ranasinghe, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: ac@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com NATERA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Genetic Testing Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ 360DX reports that a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this month alleges that Natera engaged in false and misleading advertising, marketing, and promotion of its preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy. The plaintiffs, Melissa Klein and Valerie Griffeth, allege that Natera violated New York and Illinois consumer protection laws and committed fraud by marketing and selling its Spectrum PGT-A test as a "proven, accurate, and reliable method to decrease the chance of miscarriage and increase the chance of giving birth to a healthy baby when science does not support this," according to the court filing. Natera discontinued its Spectrum PGT-A test before the court filing. In the plaintiffs' view, PGT-A testing is "unproven, inaccurate, and unreliable," and Natera provided false and misleading statements about the test to its customers. PGT-A testing was marketed and sold by Natera as an add-on to the in vitro fertilization process to screen embryos for chromosomal abnormalities. According to the court filing, PGT-A testing is marketed by Natera to people pursuing IVF as a way of increasing the chance of embryo implantation, decreasing the chance of miscarriage, reducing the time to pregnancy, increasing the rate of pregnancy and live birth rates, and improving the chance of a healthy pregnancy. However, the plaintiffs claim that the science does not support these claims, citing studies showing that there is no difference between cycles utilizing PGT-A and cycles not utilizing PGT-A when looking at pregnancy, miscarriage, or live birth rates. They cited studies showing that PGT-A testing is unable to accurately differentiate between euploidy and aneuploidy of any given embryo. The plaintiffs also noted that United Healthcare and Aetna, along with other insurance companies, have found that PGT-A is unproven and not medically necessary and thus have not covered the testing. In addition, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology issued a committee opinion in 2018 that the value of PGT-A as a screening test for IVF patients has yet to be determined. Meantime, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2020 released an opinion noting that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of PGT-A testing in all infertile women. Klein and Griffeth both purchased PGT-A testing from Natera as add-ons to their IVF treatments and said that they would not have purchased the testing had they known about the body of scientific knowledge around it. The plaintiffs claimed that Natera knew that a problem existed with the results of PGT-A testing and that there was a problem with strictly defining embryos as either euploid or aneuploid but did not incorporate its knowledge into its marketing and advertising. The plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and restitution, as well as an order requiring Natera to adequately disclose the "true nature" of PGT-A testing. They are also requesting Natera disgorge amounts wrongfully obtained for PGT-A testing and award injunctive relief, including enjoining Natera from engaging in misleading and deceptive practices going forward. Natera was previously sued in 2021 for unfair and deceptive billing practices related to its noninvasive prenatal tests and carrier genetic screening tests, including Spectrum. In a statement, a spokesperson from Natera noted the allegations concern a product Natera no longer offers and that it disagrees with the allegations and "intends to defend against them vigorously." [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Campbell Sues Over Eligibility Restrictions ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEJUAN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07467 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2026) is an action on behalf of athletes challenging the new eligibility rules adopted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association on June 24, 2026 ("Age-Based Rule"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the new rule of the Defendant impose unreasonable eligibility restrictions that arbitrarily and disparately cut short college athletes' ability to compete and thereby prohibit, cap, and otherwise effectively limit the compensation that Division I athletes may receive for the use of their names, images, likenesses, and athletic reputations. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics in the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A.Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. Melinda J. Morales, Esq. Margaret Shadid, Esq. Andrew Yoder, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY&ELGERSMA LLP 311 S.Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 Email: kaw@wbe-llp.com jnb@wbe-llp.com mjm@wbe-llp.com ms@wbe-llp.com ay@wbe-llp.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Anthony J. Stauber, Esq. Emily B. Egart, Esq. GUSTAFSONGLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com tstauber@gustafsongluek.com eegart@gustafsongluek.com - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. GUSTAFSONGLUEK PLLC 600W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com NEW DIRECTION: Seeks to Compel Supplemental Discovery Responses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Gilbert Theriault and William Weigel, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. New Direction IRA, Inc., New Direction Trust Company, and Mainstar Trust, Case No. 2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM (D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to compel supplemental discovery responses. Accordingly, New Direction requests that the Court compel the Plaintiffs to produce all documents responsive to Requests Nos. 5, 12, and 13, including documents and communications relating to non-self-directed IRA (SDIRA) precious-metals investments. The requested materials fall comfortably within Rule 26's broad relevance standard. Importantly, New Direction is not seeking discovery into unrelated financial affairs or unrelated investment activity. Rather, it seeks communications and materials that identify the sources of information the Plaintiffs received concerning precious-metals investing, depository selection, storage options, and First State Depository ("FSD") itself. The Plaintiffs allege that New Direction recommended, directed, steered, or otherwise influenced them to store their precious metals at FSD, and that the Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon such recommendations and/or alleged omissions in selecting FSD as their depository. New Direction is a provider of Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lVJsvP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: M. Todd Carroll, Esq. Kevin A. Hall, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP 1221 Main Street, Suite 1600 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 454-6504 E-mail: todd.carroll@wbd-us.com kevin.hall@wbd-us.com - and - Stephen R. McAllister, Esq. Harrison M. Rosenthal, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64111-7700 Telephone: (816) 460-2400 Facsimile: (816) 531-7545 E-mail: stephen.mcallister@dentons.com harrison.rosenthal@dentons.com NEWPORT GROUP: Ewing Proposed Form of Notice OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order granting approval to the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and directing notice to the members of the class. The Court sets the Notice Date as no later than July 31, 2026. The notice contains clear, concise, plain, and easily understood language regarding (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the definition of the class certified, and (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses. In order to best serve the needs of the case, protect class members, and fairly conduct the action, the Court will defer ordering notice of the class action. The Court will adopt July 31, 2026, as the Notice Date and orders that notice be disseminated no later than that date. Based on a proposed Notice Date of July 31, the Plaintiffs have also suggested an opt-out deadline of Sept. 11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court sets Sept. 11, 2026, as the opt-out deadline for the notice of class action. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in an order entered on Jan. 2, 2026. The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration in an order entered May 29, 2026. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sm1op1 at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Jackson Proposed Form of Notice OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order granting approval to the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and directing notice to the members of the class. The Court sets the Notice Date as no later than July 31, 2026. The notice contains clear, concise, plain, and easily understood language regarding (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the definition of the class certified, and (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses. In order to best serve the needs of the case, protect class members, and fairly conduct the action, the Court will defer ordering notice of the class action. The Court will adopt July 31, 2026, as the Notice Date and orders that notice be disseminated no later than that date. Based on a proposed Notice Date of July 31, the Plaintiffs have also suggested an opt-out deadline of Sept. 11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court sets Sept. 11, 2026, as the opt-out deadline for the notice of class action. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in an order entered on Jan. 2, 2026. The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration in an order entered May 29, 2026. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u3CLaC at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Russ Proposed Form of Notice OK'd ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al., v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order granting approval to the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and directing notice to the members of the class. The Court sets the Notice Date as no later than July 31, 2026. The notice contains clear, concise, plain, and easily understood language regarding (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the definition of the class certified, and (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses. In order to best serve the needs of the case, protect class members, and fairly conduct the action, the Court will defer ordering notice of the class action. The Court will adopt July 31, 2026, as the Notice Date and orders that notice be disseminated no later than that date. Based on a proposed Notice Date of July 31, the Plaintiffs have also suggested an opt-out deadline of Sept. 11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court sets Sept. 11, 2026, as the opt-out deadline for the notice of class action. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in an order entered on Jan. 2, 2026. The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration in an order entered May 29, 2026. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KZzYxH at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Wade Proposed Form of Notice OK'd ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order granting approval to the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice and directing notice to the members of the class. The Court sets the Notice Date as no later than July 31, 2026. The notice contains clear, concise, plain, and easily understood language regarding (i) the nature of the action, (ii) the definition of the class certified, and (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses. In order to best serve the needs of the case, protect class members, and fairly conduct the action, the Court will defer ordering notice of the class action. The Court will adopt July 31, 2026, as the Notice Date and orders that notice be disseminated no later than that date. Based on a proposed Notice Date of July 31, the Plaintiffs have also suggested an opt-out deadline of Sept. 11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court sets Sept. 11, 2026, as the opt-out deadline for the notice of class action. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in an order entered on Jan. 2, 2026. The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration in an order entered May 29, 2026. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wT1PZQ at no extra charge.[CC] NUTRIEN LTD: Flaten Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dan Flaten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION; AND THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Case No. 0:26-cv-02334 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 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-01176-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: Anthony Stauber, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: tstauber@gustafsongluek.com dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Joanne E. Matusko, Esq. Joseph N. Roda, Esq. Michael Tarringer, Esq. NASTLAW, LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 923-9300 Fax: (215) 923-9302 Email: dnast@nastlaw.com jmatusko@nastlaw.com jnroda@nastlaw.com - and - Gwyneth F. Lietz, Esq. Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Melinda Jeanne Morales, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 261-6195 Fax: (312) 346-0022 Email: gfl@wbe-llp.com kaw@wbe-llp.com mjm@wbe-llp.com NUTRIEN LTD: IIHAB Partnership Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as IIHAB Partnership, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION; AND THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Case No. 4:26-cv-00221 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01169 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan T. White, Esq. Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, LLC 19049 East Valley View Parkway, Ste. C Independence, MO 64055 Phone: (816) 373-9080 Fax: (816) 373-9319 Email: ggraham@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. Lindsey E. Graham, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com lgraham@kttlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Diane S. Rice, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com - and - Clayton A. Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 257 405 W. 58 Hwy. Raymore, MO 64083 Phone: (816) 318-4266 Fax: (816) 318-4267 Email: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com NUTRIEN LTD: Jewett Farms Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jewett Farms, LLC, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CANPOTEX LTD.; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE; and INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-04582 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-01191-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 Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3080 NUTRIEN LTD: Koon Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Koon and Donna Koon doing business as: Edgewood Dairy, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; KOCH, INC. F/K/A KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.,, Case No. 0:26-cv-02334 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01176-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: Bryan White, Esq. Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. WHITE GRAHAM BUCKLEY & CARR, LLC 19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C Independence, MO 64055 Phone: (816) 373-9080 Fax: (816) 373-9319 Email: bwhite@wagblaw.com ggraham@wagblaw.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Fax: (973) 623-0858 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Laura Mummert, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market St., Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 Email: lmummert@litedepalma.com NUTRIEN LTD: Miller Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION; AND THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Case No. 5:26-cv-06065 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01180-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: Diane S. Rice, Esq. BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON One Market Plaza Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 422-0900 - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP - SF 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 Email: jsaveri@lchb.com - and - Leland M. Shurin, Esq. Richard F. Lombardo, Esq. SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, PC - KC 2001 Wyandotte Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 931-0500 Fax: (816) 931-5775 Email: lshurin@sls-law.com rlombardo@sls-law.com - and - Tim LaComb, Esq. Joy M. Sidhwa, Esq. Daniel Mogin, Esq. MOGIN LAW LLP 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (619) 798-5362 Email: tlacomb@moginlawllp.com jsidhwa@moginlawllp.com dmogin@moginlawllp.com - and - Benjamin Widlanski, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. Lindsey E. Graham, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Ste 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com lgraham@kttlaw.com - and - Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 217-6810 Fax: (415) 217-6813 Email: zirpoli@saveri.com OKANOGAN BEHAVIORAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Okanogan Behavioral Healthcare, a provider of holistic behavioral health services in Okanogan County, Washington, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a May 2024 data breach that affected 26,429 individuals. A network intrusion was identified on May 15, 2024, and the forensic investigation determined that an unauthorized third party had access to its network from May 13, 2024, to May 15, 2024. Data exposed in the incident included client names, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, other identification numbers, and medical information, including diagnosis and treatment information, and health insurance information. The affected individuals started to be notified on August 23, 2024. A lawsuit was filed -- Doe v. Okanogan Behavioral Healthcare -- in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Okanogan in response to the data breach, alleging that the data breach was due to the failure of the defendant to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures, and had they been implemented, the data breach could have been prevented. Okanogan Behavioral Healthcare denies wrongdoing and liability, and disagrees with all claims and contentions in the lawsuit; however, a settlement was agreed to avoid further litigation costs and the uncertainty of a trial and associated appeals. Okanogan Behavioral Healthcare has agreed to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement notification and administration costs, and a service award for the class representative. Under the terms of the settlement, class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of losses due to the data breach and/or an alternative cash payment or credit monitoring services. Claims may be submitted for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed ordinary losses, up to a maximum of $300 per class member, and extraordinary losses up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. A claim may also be submitted for an alternative cash payment, anticipated to be $50 per class member, or two years of credit monitoring services. The maximum claim is therefore $5,300 plus $50, or $5,300 plus credit monitoring services. The deadline for objection to the settlement and exclusion is August 4, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is September 3, 2026, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for September 3, 2026. [GN] OKLAHOMA: Appeals Declaratory/Injunctive Relief Order to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ VIC REGALADO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Richard Feltz, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vic Regalado, Tulsa County Sheriff, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-00298-SPF-JFJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On May 12, 2026, Judge Stephen P. Friot entered an amended final order granting declaratory and injunctive relief. The appellate case is styled as Feltz, et al v. Regalado, et al., Case No. 26-5081, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RICHARD FELTZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Allison M. Holt-Ryan, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 - and - Hayley Horowitz, Esq. Phoebe Anne Kasdin, Esq. Kristina Michelle Saleh, Esq. STILL SHE RISES 608 East 46th Street North Tulsa, OK 74126 Telephone: (914) 837-5535 (918) 392-0867 - and - Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 - and - Alexander Karakatsanis, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Defendants-Appellants VIC REGALADO, Tulsa County Sheriff, in his official capacity, et al. are represented by: Erin Morgan Moore, Esq. Devan Pederson, Esq. Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma 313 Northeast 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 521-3921 - and - James Griffin Rea, Esq. Michael Shouse, Esq. John Tjeerdsma, Esq. Douglas A. Wilson, Esq. Tulsa County District Attorney 218 W. 6th St., 9th Floor Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 596-4845 (918) 596-8795 OKLAHOMA: Appeals Injunctive Relief Order in Feltz Civil Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY BRUCE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Richard Feltz, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tammy Bruce, in her capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-00298-SPF-JFJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On May 12, 2026, Judge Stephen P. Friot entered an amended final order granting declaratory and injunctive relief. The appellate case is styled as Feltz, et al. v. Bruce, et al., Case No. 26-5080, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RICHARD FELTZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Allison M. Holt-Ryan, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 - and - Hayley Horowitz, Esq. Phoebe Anne Kasdin, Esq. Kristina Michelle Saleh, Esq. STILL SHE RISES 608 East 46th Street North Tulsa, OK 74126 Telephone: (914) 837-5535 (918) 392-0867 - and - Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 - and - Alexander Karakatsanis, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Defendants-Appellants TAMMY BRUCE, in her capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge, et al. are represented by: Erin Morgan Moore, Esq. Devan Pederson, Esq. Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma 313 Northeast 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 521-3921 OLD COPPER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Krantz Suit Due Dec. 24, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN KRANTZ; MARJANIQUE ROBINSON; and ARIANA SKURAUSKIS, v. OLD COPPER COMPANY, INC. f/k/a J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.; and PENNEY OPCO LLC d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 2:24-cv-10031-SPG-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadlines Class certification motion filed with Feb. 24, 2027 the Plaintiff's expert report: Close of Discovery of Lead Plaintiff's Mar. 24, 2027 class certification witness(es): Close of discovery on Defendant's May 19, 2027 class certification witness(es): Reply in support of class Certification June 16, 2027 due with any necessary rebuttal reports: Class certification hearing: July 7, 2027 Old Copper owns and operates department stores. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9h8LDZ at no extra charge.[CC] OPUS HOME LOANS: Waller Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opus Home Loans Inc.. The case is styled as Steven Waller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Opus Home Loans Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-12060-JEL-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 21, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Opus Home Loans -- https://www.opushomeloans.com/ -- is an online resource for personalized mortgage solutions, fast customized quotes, great rates, & service with integrity.[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 ORACLE CORP: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Anderson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION and ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA A/K/A TULANE UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01697 (W.D. Tex., June 23, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to adequately protect the highly sensitive personally identifiable information that they obtained from Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint relates that in the regular course of its business, Oracle obtains the PII of millions of people--including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, government ID numbers, tax ID numbers, contact information, telephone numbers, email addresses, physical addresses, financial account information (including routing numbers and account numbers), and payment card numbers (e.g., debit card numbers, credit card numbers). Defendants made promises and representations that the PII they collect and store would be kept safe, confidential, that the privacy of that information would be maintained, and that Defendants would delete any sensitive information after they were no longer required to maintain it. On August 10, 2025, the cybercriminal syndicate CL0P exploited a vulnerability in the Oracle EBS software and then targeted and exfiltrated the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. On March 12, 2026, Tulane determined that one or more files exfiltrated contained Private Information including: name, Social Security number, direct deposit and banking information. On April 2, 2026 -- more than seven months after the Data Breach occurred -- Defendant Tulane began issuing notice letters to impacted individuals. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendants conduct, asserts the complaint. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Michael Anderson is a former employee of Defendant Tulane. Defendant Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas. It provides database software and cloud computing software services to companies across the United States, including to Tulane. Defendant Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund d/b/a The Tulane University of Louisiana a/k/a Tulane University is a private, non-profit university located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Tulane is a client of Oracle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N. Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: 713-659-5200 E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Evan M. Janush, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 535 Madison Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-421-2800 E-mail: evan.janush@lanierlawfirm.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 ORACLE CORPORATION: C. A. Files Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oracle Corporation. The case is styled as C. A., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oracle Corporation, Case No. 7:26-cv-05130 (W.D. Tex., June 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Oracle Corporation -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Austin, Texas [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Phone: (713) 659-5200 Fax: (713) 659-2204 Email: Mark.Lanier@LanierLawFirm.com PARTS TOWN: Rivers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Desire Rivers, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PARTS TOWN, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-07382 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") and common law. Because the Plaintiff and all other CSRs typically worked 40 hours or more in a workweek, Defendant's policies and practices also deprived them of overtime pay. The Defendant is in possession of the payroll and timekeeping records that will illustrate exactly which weeks Plaintiff and the Receptionists worked over 40 hours and exactly which weeks they worked under 40 hours. The Defendant knew or should have known that the time spent by Plaintiff and other CSRs in connection with the off-the-clock pre-and post-shift activities is compensable under the law. Despite knowing CSRs performed off-the-clock work before and after their shifts, Defendant failed to make any effort to stop or disallow the off-the clock work and instead suffered and permitted it to happen, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from November 2022 through July 2025 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant is a leading global distributor of genuine original equipment manufacturer repair and maintenance parts for the foodservice, HVAC, commercial laundry, and residential appliance industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com PEYTON PALAIO: Court Narrows Claims in Palaio FAC ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. PEYTON PALAIO, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00488-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Novak entered a judgement that will grant in part and deny in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Court will: (1) Deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(2) as to Individual Defendants Palaio, Reilly and Jennings and Organizational Defendants Martian Sales, LGI, LP, and Calibre; (2) Grant the Defendant's 12(b)(6) Motion as to Counts II and III and dismiss these counts in their entirety without prejudice; (3) Deny the Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion as to the following counts and parties, all of which shall proceed to discovery: Count I: as to Defendants Palaio, Reilly, Jennings, JOpen, Martian Sales, LGI, LP and Calibre; Count IV: as to Defendants Palaio, Reilly, Jennings, JOpen, Martian Sales, LGI, LP, and Calibre; Count V: as to Defendants Palaio, Reilly and Jennings. (4) Grant the Plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery as to the Defendants Skelmis, Tautline, Fastlncense.com, FMK and CAG Holdings CO; and (5) Hold in abeyance the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) as to those Defendants pending the completion of jurisdictional discovery. The Court will delineate the parameters of the parties' jurisdictional discovery in the Order accompanying this Memorandum Opinion. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated that Organizational Defendants Martian Sales, LGI, LP, and Calibre constitute alter egos of Defendant JOpen, meriting piercing of those entities' corporate veil and imputing JOpen's contacts with Virginia to those Defendants. Likewise, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently established specific personal jurisdiction over Individual Defendants Palaio, Jennings and Reilly based on their purported acts in furtherance of a conspiracy with JOpen. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o1XeeP at no extra charge.[CC] PHILLIPS 66: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 26, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUDIE PLEASANT, et al., v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-10341-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered a case management scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be Aug. 31, 2026. -- On or before Feb. 26, 2027, the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification. -- On or before March 29, 2027, the Defendant will file its opposition to class certification. -- On or before April 9, 2027, the Plaintiff will file any reply, if any, to the defendant's opposition. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on April 22, 2027, at 1:30 PM. In putative class actions, prior to submitting any motion for approval of a class settlement, the parties shall review the guidelines at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidanceand tailor the motion appropriately. The Defendant is an American multinational energy company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yzZdt0 at no extra charge.[CC] PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS: Frazier Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Freddie Saevon Frazier, on behalf of himself, those similarly situated, and/or aggrieved California-based non-exempt employees v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, 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 Eastern District of California on June 24, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01066. The Plaintiff filed this employment action alleging the following causes of action: whistleblower retaliation in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5; retaliation for safety complaints in violation of California Labor Code Section 6310; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; waiting time penalties; and civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney's General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Labor Code Section 2698 (the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq. Christina H. Hayes, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 Email: blmccarthy@littler.com chayes@littler.com POVERELLO CENTER: McKenzie's Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN S. MCKENZIE, v. POVERELLO CENTER, INC., BLACK KNIGHT SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS, LLC, CITY OF MISSOULA, MISSOULA COUNTY, MISSOULA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL, ANDREA DAVIS, JILL BONNY, JOHN DOES 1-4; and JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 9:25-cv-00097-KLD (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge DeSoto entered an order denying: (1) McKenzie's motion for appointment of counsel; (2) Motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of motion for appointment of counsel; (3) Motion for limited, expedited pre-dismissal discovery; and (4) Motion to compel production of public records are deined. The Court further orders that this action is stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motions currently pending on the docket. The parties shall not file any additional motions, briefing, or other materials until this stay is lifted. The Court finds that a temporary stay of these proceedings pending resolution of the Defendants' motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and McKenzie's motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint, is warranted. A temporary stay will not cause any unnecessary delay, will not result in any hardship or inequity, and will promote judicial economy by limiting the filing of additional motions, briefs, and other materials so that the Court can address the many motions that are already pending. The Plaintiff Shawn McKenzie, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging federal constitutional claims and pendent state constitutional claims arising out of the enforcement of a no firearms policy at a homeless shelter located in Missoula. Poverello is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing food, shelter, clothing and other essential services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZzKrFp at no extra charge.[CC] PREFERRED BANK: Dawkins Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- MONICA DAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREFERRED BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-01077 (E.D. Cal., June 25, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Federal Wiretap Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant knowingly embeds and deploys the Trackers on the Website, www.preferredbank.com, to facilitate the third parties' interception of the contents of users' electronic communications. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Google Analytics Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties. Preferred Bank is an independent commercial bank headquartered in Los Angeles, California. It provides community banking, commercial real estate loans, and international trade financing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com REDDIT INC: Class Cert Bid in Babbini Suit Due July 13, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Babbini, v. Reddit, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01532-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: July 10, 2028 Final pretrial conference: May 25, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 02, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 10, 2027 Last day to hear motion for July 13, 2027 class certification: Initial disclosures due: July 2, 2026 Reddit is an American proprietary social news aggregation and forum social media platform. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AZ99Ro at no extra charge.[CC] RENAISSANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Ticket Fees' Suit for $1.9MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who paid a service fee to purchase an electronic ticket to the New York Renaissance Faire through the official event website between Aug. 29, 2022, and April 4, 2025, may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $20 from a class action settlement. Renaissance Entertainment Productions Inc. agreed to pay up to $1.9 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to properly disclose service fees for tickets sold online for the New York Renaissance Faire in Tuxedo, New York. Who can file a claim for a payout? Class members are individuals in the United States who purchased an electronic ticket to the New York Renaissance Faire located in Tuxedo, New York, between Aug. 29, 2022, and April 4, 2025. How much are settlement payments? Cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a cash payment of up to $20. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: New York Renaissance Faire Ticket Fee Settlement Administrator, PO Box 2569, Portland, OR 97208-2569 The claim deadline is Aug. 24, 2026. Required claim information All class members must provide the unique ID from the settlement notice they received. Online claimants must also provide the PIN from the same notice. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund is capped at $1,900,000 and will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $633,333.33 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to approved class members: Up to $20 per valid claim Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 24, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 24, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 22, 2026 When is the New York Renaissance Faire ticket fee settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants no later than 90 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Renaissance Entertainment Productions Inc. failed to properly disclose service fees for online ticket sales to the New York Renaissance Faire in violation of New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Sec. 25.07(4). The company denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and cost of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $20 Deadline: August 24, 2026 [GN] RICOH USA: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Order in MTP Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Aug. 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move for entry of an order: (1) reconsidering the Court's June 4, 2026, Order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and, upon reconsideration, vacating or modifying the Order, and (2) clarifying the Order with respect to the temporal scope of the class definition and the specific claims the Plaintiff may pursue on behalf of the certified class and/or subclass pursuant to L.R. 7-18, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (the "Motion"). This Motion is made following the conference of counsel, pursuant to section 5(b) of the above-captioned Court's Standing Order, and L.R. 7-3, which took place on June 11, 2026. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qeQrnq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Deanna J. Lucci, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. Taylor A. Stewart, Esq. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Brian A. Mcaleenan, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-7442 Facsimile: (213) 403-6511 E-mail: JARiley@duanemorris.com DJLucci@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com TStewart@duanemorris.com GMaatman@duanemorris.com BAMcaleenan@duanemorris.com RIVER HEIGHTS: Kidd Suit Seeks to Stay Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Kidd, Donna McKnight, and Barbara Johnson, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. River Heights Capital LLC, David Kennedy Bifulco, and Pollack & Rosen, P.A., Case No. 2:25-cv-05112-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay discovery and class certification deadlines pending resolution of motions. Despite the Plaintiffs serving their first discovery requests on Feb. 5, the Defendants have repeatedly delayed and dragged their feet in producing both class discovery and merits discovery relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims such that -- over four months later -- most discovery the Plaintiffs are entitled to is still outstanding, the suit claims. Further, none of the discovery produced by either Defendant has complied with the Court's ESI Order, which has hampered the Plaintiffs' ability to review even the limited discovery provided, the suit adds. River Heights is a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p21A0P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Nagdeman, Esq. Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER P.C. 1717 Arch St., Ste 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5660 E-mail: dnagdeman@langergrogan.com iackelsberg@langergrogan.com - and - Thomas Ferrant, Esq. Tamar Hoffman, Esq. Kerry Smith, Esq. COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES INC. 100 N. 18th St. Ste. 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 443-2675 E-mail: tferrant@clsphila.org thoffman@clsphila.org ksmith@clsphila.org ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART, and JUAN CARLOS VAZQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. ROBERT LUNA, SHERIFF, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on July 20, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will request the Court an Order granting reconsideration of its Order denying class certification. This motion is filed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties regarding L.R. 7- 3, filed concurrently. Robert Luna is an American law enforcement officer who has served as the sheriff of Los Angeles County since 2022. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ircyZy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Dominic Price, Esq. JDP PC 23465 Civic Center Way Malibu, CA 90265-5581 Telephone: (310) 451-2222 E-mail: jdp@jdpfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Justin W. Clark, Esq. LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 150 S. Los Robles Ave., Ste. 660 Pasadena, CA 91101 RUGGABLE LLC: Class Cert Deadline Continued to Dec. 4 ----------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue class certification deadline. The deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued from July 10, 2026, to Dec. 4, 2026. Ruggable provides flooring products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eNwnZV at no extra charge.[CC] RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Hearing Sought in Preciado Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVELIN PRECIADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01243-CNS-KAS (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion requesting a hearing regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and requesting that the scheduled final pretrial conference be vacated. The Parties request an in-person hearing to argue the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on July 2, 2026. A hearing will provide an opportunity for the parties to address the Court and to respond to questions that the Court may have regarding the Motion and to give more junior attorneys a meaningful opportunity to present arguments to the Court. Additionally, the Parties request that the final pretrial conference currently scheduled for Aug. 11, 2026 be vacated and be reset after the Court rules on the Motion. RugsUSA sells home furnishings and decor products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pyftW4 at no extra charge.[CC] RYAN MORAN: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.F. et al, v. Ryan Moran, Case No. 3:26-cv-05095-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes. The first class (the "proposed PDN class") would consist of: "All Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of 21 in the State of Washington who have been approved for Private Duty Nursing (PDN) services by the Defendant, but who are not receiving Private Duty Nursing services at the level approved by the Defendant." The second class (the "proposed PC class") would consist of: "All Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of 21 in the State of Washington who have been approved for Personal Care (PC) services by the Defendant, but who are not receiving Personal Care services at the level approved by the Defendant." The Plaintiffs argue that they meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) because the Defendant's alleged failure to arrange for Private Duty Nursing ("PDN") and Personal Care ("PC") services is generally applicable to the potential class members. But as the Defendant points out, the Plaintiffs' request for payment of parents who perform PC services demonstrates the fact-bound inquiry necessary to provide relief for each potential class member. Given that the Plaintiffs have not identified a generally applicable practice or policy—aside from the lack of services received—it is not clear to the Court what sort of injunctive relief would redress the varied injuries of potential class members. The Court therefore agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs have not met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs are five Washington children with complex health needs who qualify for services from the Washington State Health Care Authority. They allege that Defendant Ryan Moran, the Director of the Washington State Health Care Authority, has failed to provide their approved PDN and PC services in violation of the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TR01EE at no extra charge.[CC] SAINT PETER'S: Pollinger Sues Over Communications Interception -------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Pollinger and Akua Kwakwa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-07394 (D.N.J., 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.saintpetershcs.com/ (the "Website"). 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, DoubleClick, and ShareThis—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 have been Defendant's patient for many years and have used Defendant's Website numerous times. Saint Peter's Healthcare System, Inc. is a nonprofit healthcare provider headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey.[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 SAN DIEGO CONVENTION: Conditional Status of Collective Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE DE LA CERDA, on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01058-CAB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Bencivengo entered an order partially granting motion to conditionally certify the Proposed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective. The Plaintiff has met the lenient notice-stage standard for conditional certification with respect to the Defendant's alleged rounding and overtime calculation practices. If, after the close of discovery, it becomes apparent that these claims should be pursued on an individual basis, the Defendant may move to decertify the collective. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective under the FLSA with respect to the Defendant's alleged non-neutral rounding and overtime calculation practices. The Court deems notice by email sufficient. The Plaintiff may email the potential collective members for whom the Plaintiff has received email addresses. The Plaintiff may additionally identify any employees for whom no email address has been produced by the Defendant and provide a list of those employees to the Defendant. The Defendant must then mail a copy of the notice to the employee's address. The Court denies the Plaintiff's request to post the notice in the San Diego Convention Center because the Plaintiff has not shown how that would reach potential collective members not otherwise notified. The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a Proposed FLSA Collective as follows: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of San Diego Convention Center Corporation, Inc. who worked in the United States of America at any time during the three years preceding the filing of this action through the present date." The Defendant provides event management services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6dSzCr at no extra charge.[CC] SANDISK SSDS: Plaintiffs to File Renewed Bid for Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Sandisk SSDS Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04152-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 18, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will renew their motion for class certification and seek an Order: (i) certifying the proposed revised, narrower injunctive relief class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely: "All persons residing in the United States who, since 2020, purchased, own, and possess an Impacted Drive1 that has not been repaired, replaced, or refunded" (ii) appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the class, and (iii) appointing Silver Golub & Teitell LLP and Bursor & Fischer, P.A. as Class Counsel. On Oct. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2). The Defendants are technology companies that engage in the manufacture and sale of data storage devices including external solid-state drives, known as SSDs. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MRPeBj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Krystyna Gancoss, Esq. Samantha Blend, Esq. Kaitlin Sayed, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 425-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com jeseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com sblend@sgtlaw.com ksayed@sgtlaw.com SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Summary Judgment Granted on Appeal in Guilbeau ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of TREVER GUILBEAU, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; CHRISTOPHER O'MARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; HENRY HERBERT, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-50594 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted summary judgment in favor of Schlumberger on Guilbeau's individual claim. The collective action concerns eligibility for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The statute requires overtime compensation for covered employees paid on a daily basis but exempts salaried employees. At issue is a "hybrid" compensation structure used by Schlumberger, which paid workers partly by salary and partly by day rate. The appeal centers on whether this hybrid pay arrangement qualifies as salary-based compensation exempt from FLSA overtime requirements and related regulations. The named plaintiffs were Schlumberger employees. Trever Guilbeau worked as a Directional Driller (DD), responsible for providing oilfield drilling services and executing non-vertical well-drilling projects. Christopher O'Mara worked as a Measuring While Drilling (MWD) employee, an engineering role involving the collection, monitoring, and reporting of data from tools and sensors used in directional drilling operations. Schlumberger paid both DDs and MWDs under an undisputed "hybrid" system consisting of fixed pay and variable pay. Every two weeks, Guilbeau received $1,826 and O'Mara received $2,538.46 in fixed pay that did not vary with hours or days worked. Guilbeau received a $525 "rig day rate" for each day he worked on a rig and a $262.50 "standby day rate" for each day he remained on-site without working, while O'Mara earned $160 per day worked on a rig. Guilbeau also received additional bonuses for exemplary or extra work, such as serving as the most experienced crew member or working on a short-staffed crew. This variable pay often made up a substantial portion of total compensation; for example, in a seven-day workweek, Guilbeau earned $913 in fixed pay plus $3,675 in rig day rates, totaling $4,588. The Plaintiffs routinely worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. Guilbeau and O'Mara filed an FLSA collective action seeking overtime compensation for themselves and other DD and MWD employees who were paid through a combination of salary and day rates. They moved for notice to potential collective members, while Schlumberger sought partial summary judgment, arguing that Guilbeau was exempt from overtime as a salaried employee. The district court denied Schlumberger's motion, allowed notice to the DD collective but denied it for MWDs, and later granted interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), citing a shifting legal landscape. This appeal followed. The parties dispute only the "highly compensated employee" (HCE) exemption, specifically whether Schlumberger paid Guilbeau on a salary basis. The relevant regulations set out two methods for establishing exempt salary-basis compensation. The Fifth Circuit must determine which regulatory framework, if any, applies to Guilbeau's compensation structure. Under 29 C.F.R. Section 541.602(a), an employee is treated as paid on a salary basis if the guaranteed compensation is paid on a weekly or longer basis, with the "predetermined sum" calculated on a weekly basis. Section 541.604(a) clarifies that employers may provide additional compensation without defeating the exemption, so long as the employee receives a guaranteed minimum weekly salary. Section 541.604(b) addresses employees paid on an hourly, daily, or shift basis, who may still qualify as salaried if they are guaranteed at least the minimum weekly salary regardless of hours worked and if there is a reasonable relationship between the guaranteed amount and actual earnings. The Fifth Circuit held that Guilbeau's hybrid compensation scheme satisfied the requirements of 29 C.F.R. Section 541.602(a), meaning he was paid on a salary basis and was therefore exempt from overtime as a HCE. Schlumberger's biweekly guaranteed payment of $1,826 exceeded the regulatory minimum, was predetermined, and was not tied to hours or work performed, entitling Schlumberger to partial summary judgment on his individual claim. However, the Fifth Circuit declined to extend that ruling to the broader collective action, noting that the record lacked individualized evidence regarding other opt-in plaintiffs' job duties, compensation structures, and exemption status. It therefore remanded those issues to the district court for further proceedings and declined to reach Schlumberger’s additional arguments regarding estoppel and the collective notice process. In conclusion, the Fifth Circuit held that Guilbeau was paid on a salary basis and therefore was ineligible for overtime compensation. It reversed the district court's ruling, granted summary judgment in favor of Schlumberger on Guilbeau's individual claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/cbZfMMLBt SECURITAS SECURITY: Must Oppose Ulloa Class Cert Bid by July 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-ASK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ajay Krishnan entered an order granting stipulation to modify briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1. The Court modifies the briefing schedule and hearing date for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: a. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be extended to July 7, 2026; b. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of their motion for class certification shall be extended to Aug. 12, 2026; and c. The current hearing date of Aug. 12, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. shall be continued to Sept. 9, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. Securitas is a provider of integrated electronic security solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KlifHP at no extra charge.[CC] SENTURE LLC: Odum Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Taliyah Odum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SENTURE, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00196-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky., June 23, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Although Senture paid Plaintiff and other hourly-paid call-center employees some overtime compensation based on their recorded hours, Senture failed to pay all overtime compensation required by the FLSA because it did not include all compensable work time in employees' total hours worked. This omitted compensable time included, among other things, pre-shift boot-up, pre-shift login time, call-readiness work, required computer-based training performed outside recorded paid time, post-shift call completion and call-related work, short compensable breaks treated as unpaid time, and time lost or omitted because of Senture's timekeeping and time-editing practices. As a result, hourly-paid call-center employees who work more than 40 hours in a workweek are not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over forty, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Senture as an hourly-paid call-center employee from June 18, 2025. Senture provides customer service and call-center work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne L. Gilday, Esq. LAWRENCE, BEIRNE & LEWIS 535 Madison Avenue, Suite 500 Covington, KY 41011 Phone: (859) 578-9130 Fax: (859) 578-1032 Email: anne.gilday@lbllaw.com - and - Achchana Ranasinghe, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: ac@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com SERVICEAIDE INC: Agrees to $1.8MM Data Breach Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former Catholic Health patients in the United States who received notice that the Serviceaide data breach that occurred between Sept. 19, 2024, and Nov. 5, 2024, affected their private information may qualify to submit a claim for up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. The incident compromised data belonging to approximately 480,000 individuals. Serviceaide Inc. agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy related to a cybersecurity incident that potentially exposed the sensitive information of current and former patients of Catholic Health. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States whose private information the Serviceaide and Catholic Health data breach that occurred between Sept. 19, 2024, and Nov. 5, 2024, impacted. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment A - documented losses payment: Class members can claim up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket expenses or financial losses due to fraud or identity theft related to the data breach. Eligible losses include: -- Bank fees, overdraft charges, late fees or declined payment fees resulting from fraud -- Fees for credit monitoring, identity theft protection services or freezing/unfreezing credit after the breach -- Professional fees paid to address identity fraud, which may include accountants', attorneys' or fraud specialists' fees -- Costs to replace IDs or documents and postage -- Fraudulent and unreimbursed charges or monetary losses traceable to the data breach -- Cash payment B - alternate cash payment: Class members who do not submit a documented losses claim can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment estimated at $50. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Nancy Balzer, et al., v. Serviceaide Inc., c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324 The claim deadline is Sept. 1, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Online claims require the class member ID from official settlement notice. -- Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, police reports and other proof of identity theft or fraud related to the data breach. Payout options -- Electronic payment -- Paper check mailed to address provided (only option for mailed claims) Settlement fund breakdown The $1,800,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $600,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each to 15 representatives ($37,500 total) -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 17, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 1, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 16, 2026 When is the Serviceaide and Catholic Health data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 90 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed Serviceaide Inc. experienced a data breach between Sept. 19, 2024, and Nov. 5, 2024, during which unauthorized parties accessed private information of Catholic Health patients. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy. Serviceaide denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 Deadline: September 1, 2026 [GN] SINCERE HOME CARE: Weyek Sues Failure to Pay Wages for Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Gretchen Weyek, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Sincere Home Care, LLC, Cheemika Jenkins, and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 0:26-cv-03066 (D. Minn., June 24, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act ("MFLSA") stemming from Defendants' failure to pay wages due for overtime hours worked. Pursuant to Defendants' compensation policies and practices, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not compensated at the statutorily mandated overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. Instead, Defendants compensated non-exempt employees at their regular hourly rate for all hours worked, regardless of the amount of overtime accrued during the applicable pay period. The Defendants did not notify Plaintiff of the substandard overtime policy. The Defendants' employment policy results in the unlawful failure to pay wages due under the FLSA and MFLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a home health aide from July 7th 2025, until the present. Sincere Home Care is a home health-care agency that provides home health, nursing, and supportive services to individuals with developmental disabilities and mental health diagnoses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Evan Robert, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com erobert@chestnutcambronne.com SOUND DIMENSION: Gutierrez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Tomas Rene Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SOUND DIMENSION PLUS LTD, HOME THEATRE EXPERTS LLC, LOUIS G. FORANOCE, and PAUL GENOVESE, Case No. 1:26-cv-03772 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and the supporting regulations of the New York State Department of Labor set forth in Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff regularly worked 55 to 60 hours per week, 6 days per week. Defendants nonetheless paid Plaintiff for all hours worked — including the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week — at his straight-time regular hourly rate, without the overtime premium of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay required by the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants effectuated and concealed this overtime scheme by paying Plaintiff in two parts: 40 hours per week by direct deposit, and his remaining hours and Saturday work in cash, off the books — a structure designed to disguise both the true number of hours Plaintiff worked and the overtime premium he was owed, and to keep the cash component off any wage statement, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an automobile detailer from 2011 through at least June 2026 and was, by his account, the most senior employee of the business. The Defendants operate an integrated automobile-detailing and home electronics/home-theater installation business from a single premises in Syosset, New York, under the names Sound Dimensions Plus and Home Theatre Experts, among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com SUMIRIKO OHIO: Adams Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMMY ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Named Plaintiff v. SUMIRIKO OHIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01431 (N.D. Ohio, June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its willful failure to pay Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as its willful failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and unjust enrichment common law. The complaint relates that the Defendant operates at one or more manufacturing facilities/plants in the continental United States, including in Ohio. Through such facilities, Defendant employs hundreds of similarly situated hourly, non-exempt manufacturing/production employees, including Named Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the State Law Class in furtherance of its business purposes. The Defendant applied policies and/or practices pertaining to the payment of wages, including overtime and other compensation, and timekeeping uniformly to its hourly, non-exempt employees. As a result of Defendant's companywide policy or practice of failing to include additional remuneration in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime compensation, Named Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the State Law Class were not fully and properly paid for all of their compensable overtime hours worked because Defendant did not correctly calculate their regular rates of pay for the purposes of meeting the minimum requirements set forth in the FLSA and Ohio law, which resulted in unpaid overtime wages, says the suit. Named Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the State Law Class now seek to exercise their rights to unpaid overtime wages, non-overtime hours (as applicable), and additional statutory liquidated damages in this matter (as applicable), other penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest (as applicable), costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, the employer's share of relevant taxes, and such further relief as the Court deems equitable and just. Named Plaintiff Timmy Adams has worked as an hourly, non-exempt manufacturing/production employee for Defendant. Defendant Sumiriko Ohio, Inc. is an auto parts supplier and manufacturer, providing anti-vibration rubber parts such as hydraulic and conventional engine mounts, body mounts, engine drivelines, exhaust isolation mountings, and body isolation products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3131 Executive Pkwy., Suite 106 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com TAURO PIZZA CORP: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. TAURO PIZZA CORP D/B/A TAURO PIZZA HIALEAH, Case No. 1:26-cv-24381-KMW (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. TAURO PIZZA CORP D/B/A TAURO PIZZA HIALEAH, owns, operates and oversees a pizza restaurant.[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 TERRAN ORBITAL: Scottini Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement ------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO SCOTTINI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERRAN ORBITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a Maryland Corporation; MARC BELL; DANIEL STATON; DOUG RAABERG; GARY HOBART; JAMES LACHANCE; RICHARD Y. NEWTON; STRATTON SCLAVOS; TOBI PETROCELLI; and TOM MANION, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01587 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) asserts claims against Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, based on Defendants' violation of Rule 14a-9 and seeks damages and all available equitable relief. This action is brought by Plaintiff as a shareholder of Terran against the Defendants who issued materially false and misleading Proxy Statement on October 4, 2024 for soliciting shareholders vote in favor of an acquisition by defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation named as a "solicitor" of votes in favor of the Acquisition in proxy materials. The Acquisition was a cash out between Terran and Lockheed for $.25 per share even though several months earlier Lockheed had offered $1.00 per share in cash. The Proxy materials contained the Board's recommendation to approve the Acquisition, but this only came after Terran CEO Marc Bell made an undisclosed decision to change his mind from rejecting the Acquisition to approving the Acquisition coincident with an allocation to defendant him of a $6 million personal bonus from the Lockheed bonus pool -- two-thirds of the entire transaction bonus pool. Bell had previously publicly condemned the Acquisition as inadequate for TOC shareholders. The complaint alleges that the misrepresentations and non-disclosures of information rendered the statements in the 2024 Proxy materials materially false and misleading. Other statements in the 2024 Proxy were affirmatively false and misleading and material to shareholders' decision on how to vote and/or whether to seek appraisal, adds the complaint. Terran Orbital Corporation is a manufacturer of satellite products primarily serving the aerospace and defense industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 205 Hudson Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com - and - Fletcher Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW, PLLC 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 709-8245 E-mail: fletcher@fmoorelaw.com - and - Kristopher P. Diulio, Esq. THE DIULIO FIRM PC 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 210 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 450-6830 E-mail: KDiulio@DiulioFirm.com TESLA: Arbitration Denial in Doss Wage-&-Hour Suit Partly Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of KENNETH DOSS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TESLA, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A173210 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, (i) affirmed the trial court's order finding that Doss and the putative class members are exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); (ii) reversed in part the order denying Tesla's motion to compel arbitration; and (iii) remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. The FAA, 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq., generally governs arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce. However, Section 1 exempts employment contracts of "seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." The issue is whether Tesla's yard hostlers, who move 53-foot trailers containing auto parts shipped from out of state around the company's factory grounds, qualify as workers engaged in interstate commerce and are therefore exempt from the FAA. Doss, a former Tesla employee, filed a putative class action alleging wage and hour violations under the Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200). He alleged he worked for Tesla from 2017 to 2021, first as a materials handler and then as a yard hostler at its Fremont distribution center. He sought to represent a putative class of "all current and former yard hostlers, material handlers, and other nonexempt, hourly employees who handled packages and goods as part of international and/or interstate commerce" during the class period. Tesla moved to compel individual arbitration based on Doss's electronically signed arbitration agreement. It also submitted a declaration stating that Doss worked as a yard hostler at its Fremont manufacturing facility and that yard hostlers "play no role in transporting goods across state or international borders." Doss opposed the motion, arguing he was exempt from the FAA because Tesla's yard hostlers are workers engaged in interstate commerce under Section 1. He declared that his duties included driving trucks carrying car parts from other warehouses and distribution centers, conducting safety inspections, and verifying that trucks were properly loaded and unloaded. He also argued that the California Arbitration Act, rather than the FAA, governed the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Tesla's motion to compel arbitration. Although it found a valid arbitration agreement, it held the FAA did not apply because Doss was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce under Section 1. The court reasoned that Doss's work moving out-of-state auto parts within Tesla's facility remained part of the interstate flow of commerce. Applying California law, the court further held that Labor Code Section 229 rendered the arbitration agreement ineffective as to most of Doss's claims, found the class waiver unenforceable under Gentry, concluded the agreement was unconscionable, and denied the motion in its entirety. Tesla appealed. In the published portion of its Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the trial court correctly found Doss and the putative class members exempt from the FAA under Section 1 because Tesla's yard hostlers are transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Although they work entirely within Tesla's factory, moving and positioning 53-foot trailers for unloading is a necessary step in completing the interstate transportation of auto parts. The Court also held the trial court erred in applying Labor Code Section 229 to Doss's overtime, meal and rest break, and wage statement claims because they are not actions to recover due and unpaid wages. In the unpublished portion of its Opinion, the Court held the trial court properly declined to invalidate the class waiver under Gentry but erred in refusing to sever the provision. It remanded the case for the trial court to address the unresolved unconscionability issues. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order insofar as it found Doss and the putative class members exempt from the FAA. However, it reversed in part the order denying Tesla's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/nsrSY1byb. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael D. Weil -- michael.weil@morganlewis.com -- and Ashlee N. Cherry -- shlee.cherry@morganlewis.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Thierman Buck LLP, Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Leah L. Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com; The Markham Law Firm, David R. Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- and Lisa Brevard for Plaintiff and Respondent. TICKETMASTER LLC: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in Holmes Due July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADINE HOLMES, et al., v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09807-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order approving the stipulation and setting the following schedule for class certification briefing in Madrigal and Holmes: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file July 30, 2026 renewed motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file Sept. 22, 2026 opposition to renewed motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Nov. 13, 2026 reply in support of renewed motion for class certification: Hearing on renewed motion for class Dec. 7, 2026, Certification: at 8:30 a.m. The June 22, 2026 status conference is taken off-calendar as to Madrigal v. Live Nation and Holmes v. Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster is an American ticket sales and distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=au34DM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brandon D. Fox, Esq. Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Sarah S. Lee, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 E-mail: BFox@jenner.com ASmith@jenner.com SLee@jenner.com TORRID LLC: Class Certification Bid in Perez Due June 18, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELLINA PEREZ et al., v. TORRID LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-06020-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order that: -- Preliminary motions shall be filed on or before Sept. 17, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on or before June 18, 2027. -- The Defendant's response shall be due 45 days after the Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosure shall be due on or before April 30, 2027. -- The Defendant's expert disclosure shall be due on or before May 14, 2027. -- Expert depositions shall be completed by June 4, 2027. Torrid offers dresses, swimwear, jeans, tops, rompers, intimates, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pCb0fP at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG PHAN, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Freeman entered an order denying motion for class certification. The Court finds that the Rule 23(a) requirements are not satisfied, because Phan is atypical of the proposed class. As it is unclear, at this stage, what ultimate objective certifying a class to try this issue would advance, the Court concludes that class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) is unavailable. Phan filed this lawsuit on June 2, 2020, alleging that Transamerica failed to comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. Phan asks the Court to certify the following class: "All owners of the Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that the Defendant lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of premium in or after 2013 without first applying Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72." Transamerica operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e9nlTH at no extra charge.[CC] TYSON FOODS: Mohamed Sues Over Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Essam Mohamed, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. TYSON FOODS, INC. and TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00132-Z (N.D. Tex., June 22, 2026), is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively, the "FLSA"), for Defendants' failure to pay all due and owing overtime wages to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff frequently worked over forty hours per week. The Defendants uniformly classified the production supervisor position as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, regardless of location worked. Even though Plaintiff should have been paid an hourly rate as a non-exempt employee pursuant to his job duties, and received overtime premium pay when he worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, Defendants at all times paid Plaintiff on a salary basis. As a result, Plaintiff did not receive all overtime pay to which he was entitled. This misclassification, and the resulting underpayment of wages, was in violation of the FLSA. Now, therefore, Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and the putative Collective Action Members as the result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated production supervisor employees overtime premium pay for all hours worked over forty in a workweek due to its misclassification of such employees as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a production supervisor during the time period relevant to this lawsuit. The Defendants operate a plant in Amarillo, Texas where Plaintiff worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com mcarley@foresterhaynie.com UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Medicare's Reimbursement Rule ------------------------------------------------------------ THE CAMPS INITIATIVE, DR. BRANDON ELROD and DR. MICHAEL SEDRAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services; and DR. MEHMET OZ, in his official capacity as Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00769-P (N.D. Tex., June 22, 2026) is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution. For more than two decades, the Defendants reimbursed advanced skin substitute products for chronic, non-healing wounds under Medicare Part B as Congress directed: as biologicals paid at Average Sales Price plus six percent. In November 2025, the Defendants issued a rule reclassifying skin substitutes from "biological" reimbursed based on the Average Sales Price to "incident-to supplies" reimbursed at a flat $127.14 per square centimeter -- a change that Defendants acknowledge will reduce reimbursements by roughly 90 percent. Under the Rule, advanced biological treatments developed over years of scientific investment will be reimbursed in the same Medicare payment category as supplies incidental to a physician's services -- supplies like band-aids and gauze. According to the complaint, the consequence of the said change in terminology is not just semantic: due to the drastic reduction in the prevailing reimbursement rate, providers have closed wound-care practices, manufacturers have halted production lines, and Medicare beneficiaries have lost access to treatments that can prevent amputation, infection, and death. The Plaintiffs allege the Rule is arbitrary and capricious for multiple reasons, all of which were raised in public comments in a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 16, 2025: (1) it fails to justify the abandonment of Defendants' longstanding policy, relying on disproven allegations, (2) it does not consider viable alternatives, (3) it irrationally ties the reimbursement price of skin substitute products to the Food and Drug Administration approval process, which is untethered from the price and creates perverse incentives for skin substitute manufacturers to pursue needlessly burdensome regulatory pathways, and (4) it does not meaningfully consider the enormous costs imposed on patients, providers, and the skin substitute industry. The CAMPs Initiative is a coalition of skin substitute manufacturers, distributors, and providers of skin substitutes that advocates for common-sense national policies that promote patient access to these lifechanging products. The United States Department of Health and Human Services is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal government created to set guidelines for the private healthcare system and providing essential human services in areas such as funding medical studies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua L. Hedrick, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 1700 Dallas, TX 75201-2708 Telephone: (214) 215-0236 Facsimile: (214) 750-3612 E-mail: jhedrick@spencerfane.com - and - Rebecca Gibson, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 3040 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 212-2716 Facsimile: (713) 963-0859 E-mail: rgibson@spencerfane.com - and - Allison B. Allman, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 777 Main Street, Suite 2100 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 334-7200 Facsimile: (817) 870-5124 E-mail: aallman@jw.com - and - Raymond P. Tolentino, Esq. Carlton E. Forbes Esq. Matthew M. Ryan, Esq. Angeline X. Chen, Esq. Anna O. Mohan, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 Telephone: (202) 842-7800 Facsimile: (202) 842-7899 E-mail: rtolentino@cooley.com cforbes@cooley.com mryan@cooley.com axchen@cooley.com amohan@cooley.com - and - Matthew N. K. Oliver, Esq. COOLEY LLP 500 Boylston Street, 14th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 937-2300 Facsimile: (617) 937-2400 E-mail: moliver@cooley.com UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Driver's Biometrics Suit Gets Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Kingston of Freight Waves reports that a lawsuit filed in 2021 by an Illinois truck driver for a unit of Universal Logistics over the strict Illinois biometric law has been granted class status. The biometric law in the Land of Lincoln has long been considered the most stringent in the country and has been called "a threat to business." It has been the focus of other trucking-related litigation, including a case against in-cab video company Lytx that resulted in payouts to thousands of drivers of between about $650 and $850 per person. Brandon Willis was a driver for Universal Intermodal Services, which is a subsidiary of publicly-traded Universal Logistics (NASDAQ: ULH). He filed his lawsuit in 2021 in U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of himself and other drivers over the company's use of a fingerprint scanner at the company's Harvey, Illinois facility. Universal Intermodal is the lead defendant. But the list of defendants was widened from the initial lawsuit in an amended August 2023 complaint to include HR-1 LLC (an arm of the private business of Matthew Moroun, who owns about 70% of Universal), Universal Management Services, Inc. and Data System Services, an outside company that provided biometric services to Universal. At the core of the dispute and lawsuit was whether Universal was violating the provisions of Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA), which was passed in 2008 and amended in 2024. Time in question goes back more than 10 years The more immediate question ruled on by Judge Elaine E. Bucklo was whether the Willis lawsuit could become a class action, taking in not just Universal employees but other workers doing business with Universal who "clocked in" to the company's system between March 30, 2016 through the present. Judge Bucklo's decision on the class status only tangentially touched on the issues raised in Willis' lawsuit. However, she does recap some of the basics of the lawsuit and the alleged violation of BIPA. BIPA, according to Judge Bucklo, requires that whatever entity is gathering biometric information must inform that person whose information is collected in writing, and receive a written release regarding collection and retention of the biometric data. The Willis lawsuit alleges that the defendants in the case "took actions that directly violated the BIPA," according to Judge Bucklo. Some of the other defendants are vicariously liable "for the BIPA violations of others, and some may be both." In the amended lawsuit, Willis said the defendants "directed, authorized, and coordinated the capture and collection of the fingerprints of workers and other persons at the Illinois Facilities by requiring the workers and other persons to use Biometric Scanners to clock in and clock out each day." They did so, the lawsuit says, "without the required consent of the persons being scanned." Just employees, or others The key question Judge Bucklo decided was the scope of the class action and whether it could include just Universal employees or any persons who had their fingerprints scanned where the company operated. By granting the wider definition of the class, Judge Bucklo brought in a group of people who will be more than 50% of the now larger number of plaintiffs. As she noted in her decision, "most" of the workers who had their fingerprints scanned worked either for a company called LINC -- a Universal Logistics subsidiary that was not named as a defendant -- or a third-party staffing agency. The extension of the class to non-Universal employees, Judge Bucklo wrote, is because "plaintiff is suing Intermodal not because Intermodal was his employer but because Intermodal is the entity that allegedly collected stores, and/or transmitted his biometrics without complying with BIPA's procedural safeguards." That would be the basis for expanding the class to include non-Intermodal employees, which Judge Bucklo ultimately did. Another Illinois case involving trucking and BIPA, brought in late 2024 by driver Floyd Eskridge who sought a class action against HMD Trucking, was settled out of court late last year. That case also was in the Northern District. [GN] VENEZUELA: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition by July 24 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cavara et al., v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting requested thirty (30)-day adjournment which result in the following deadlines: -- The Republic's deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint and to oppose the class certification motion would be July 24, 2026; -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of class certification and their opposition to the Republic's motion to dismiss would be Aug. 21, 2026; and -- The Republic's deadline to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss would be Sept. 11, 2026. Pursuant to Section I(e) of Your Honor's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela requests a thirty (30)-day adjournment of: (i) the deadline for the Republic to respond to the second amended class action complaint; (ii) the remaining class certification briefing deadlines; and (iii) the motion to dismiss briefing deadlines, each as set forth in the Court’s Order dated June 1, 2026, to allow for an orderly transition in decision-making authority with respect to the Republic’s participation in this litigation. Preparation of the Republic's responsive pleading and its opposition to class certification requires important strategic decisions that will impact the Republic's rights. CAPA does not believe it is appropriate, under present circumstances, to make decisions of this nature without input and approval from representatives of the Rodríguez government. Those representatives have not yet weighed in on these decisions, and counsel is working to facilitate that engagement. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qidJ6m at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dora Georgescu, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0186 Facsimile: (212) 237-0100 E-mail: ccardozo@velaw.com mantonelli@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VENTURA COUNTY, CA: Standing Order Entered in Santa Paula Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTA PAULA ANIMAL RESCUE CENTER, INC., et al., v. VENTURA COUNTY, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05196-SPG-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered standing order for newly assigned civil cases: The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett.1 Both the Court and all counsel bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in this Court. Counsel, as used in this Order, includes attorneys and parties who have elected to appear without an attorney and are representing themselves in this civil litigation. Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve this Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was removed from state court, the defendant that removed the case must serve this Order on all other parties. Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings set by this Court, including scheduling, settlement, and pretrial conferences, as well as trials. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. Ventura is a county located in the southern part of the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iFB2f1 at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Harriot Seeks Attys' Fees & Costs ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRIOTT, et al., v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01656-TJK (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs seek a total of $2,864,004.22 in attorneys' fees and costs. Gilbert Employment Law seeks $1,385,311.32 in attorneys' fees and $10,102.90 in costs. Webster & Fredrickson, PLLC seeks $1,409,842.90 in attorneys' fees and $58,747.50 in costs. The Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for only the most reasonable costs incurred during litigation. Counsel proactively to remove or "no charge" any costs about which the Defendant might question. The Plaintiffs seek conservative costs for the same reasons they seek conservative attorneys' fees—to avoid further unnecessary litigation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court award $68,850.40 in reimbursement for the costs they incurred. The $2,795,154.22 in total fees that Plaintiffs seek is calculated pursuant to the lodestar method, whereby the current USAO Fitzpatrick Matrix hourly rates for each timekeeper were multiplied by the number of hours worked to bring about the successful resolution. The Settling Plaintiffs claimed attorneys' fees are reasonable because they are based on the prevailing market rates for legal staff in the D.C. geographic area with similar skill and involving similarly complex legal matters, the suit says. The Defendant is the government agency that runs the Washington metro area's transit system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jiDC5t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Geoffrey H. Simpson, Esq. Kevin L. Owen, Esq. James W. Richard, Esq. Christopher P. Byrd, Esq. GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1000 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 608-0880 Facsimile: (301) 608-0881 E-mail: gsimpson@gelawyer.com kowen-efile@gelawyer.com jrichard-efile@gelawyer.com cbyrd-efile@gelawyer.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Has $2.17BB Reserves at 2026 Q1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company reserved US$2,179,000,000 related to environmental remediation, nuclear decommissioning, and worker exposure claims at March 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2026. The Company stated: "Our operations involve or have involved the use, disposal and cleanup of substances regulated under environmental protection laws, including activities for a variety of matters related to GE businesses that have been discontinued or exited. We record reserves for obligations for ongoing and future environmental remediation activities, such as the Housatonic River cleanup, and for additional liabilities we expect to incur in connection with previously remediated sites, such as natural resource damages for the Hudson River where GE completed dredging in 2019. Additionally, like many other industrial companies, we and our subsidiaries are defendants in various lawsuits related to alleged exposure by workers and others to asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other hazardous materials. Liabilities for environmental remediation and worker exposure claims exclude possible insurance recoveries. It is reasonably possible that our exposure will exceed amounts accrued due to uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and information related to individual sites and worker exposure lawsuits. Total reserves related to environmental remediation and worker exposure claims were $2,179,000,000,000 and $2,129,000,000,000 at March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nash's Ch. 11 Stay Lifted to Resolve Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Steele of Law360 Bankruptcy Authority reports that a Connecticut federal judge on June 22, 2026, granted a motion to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay that had frozen an asbestos indemnification lawsuit involving Nash Engineering Co. since October 2021. The ruling was issued after a joint request from the bankrupt entity and other involved parties. The litigation concerns insurers' efforts to resolve coverage disputes tied to asbestos-related claims arising from Nash Engineering's historical operations. The case had remained dormant due to bankruptcy protections. With the stay removed, the lawsuit may now proceed in federal court, allowing the parties to litigate outstanding questions over insurance coverage and liability allocation, the report states. FIVE BELOW: Grazioli Seeks Refund of Tariff Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------ BARBARA GRAZIOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04322 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2026) is a class action seeking a refund of tariff surcharges. In early 2025, U.S. President Donald J. Trump imposed, via Executive Orders, tariffs on dozens of countries. Although those tariffs were imposed directly on businesses, many businesses, including Five Below, turned around and passed the costs of the tariffs on to consumers via price increases (often explicitly linked to the tariffs) or even via specific tariff-related fees and/or surcharges. On February 20, 2026, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, held that International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. In other words, the Court struck down President Trump's far-reaching global tariffs. Thereafter, a U.S. trade court judge ordered the government to begin paying potentially billions of dollars in refunds to importers who paid tariffs that the Supreme Court said were collected illegally. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the refunds to be made with interest. The complaint relates that more than once, Ms. Grazioli shopped at and purchased from Five Below between April 2, 2025 and February 20, 2026. Like other Five Below customers, she paid higher prices on those purchases than at other times. Those price increases were a result of, due to, and/or to offset any or all of the tariffs imposed by the 2025 Executive Orders. It is currently unknown whether Five Below is seeking or has filed for a refunds of the illegal tariffs it paid. It also has not stated publicly that it intends to provide any consumer(s) any refund(s) for any extra amount(s) the consumer(s) paid for any good(s) due to the illegal tariffs. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to a declaration that a business actually seeking and/or receiving a refund from the federal government for amounts paid as a result of, due to, and/or to offset any or all of the tariffs imposed by the 2025 Executive Orders is not a condition, precondition, or prerequisite for a consumer being able to seek and/or receive a refund(s) of any amounts the consumer paid to a business as a result of, due to, and/or to offset any or all of those tariffs. Plaintiff Barbara Grazioli is a resident of Maple Shade, New Jersey Defendant Five Below, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that has 1,921 stores across 46 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Sampson, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 253-4992 E-mail: mike@lcllp.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 ***